Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Is it really all that bad?

158 replies

Notevenmyrealname · 20/12/2018 18:14

I was having a conversation today with a friend who works in HR and is very clued up on the law and equality issues and he was saying that most of the scare stories about transgender stuff are a storm in a teacup. Realistically nobody is going to allow a small group of militant trans activists to remove women’s rights. All the updated GRA will do will allow people who need it a slightly less hassle way to change their gender officially and as it affects such a small number of people (supposedly 1% of the population) it’s really not going to have a massive impact on the vast majority of people. There are no plans to change the Equality Act of 2010, so sex will still be a protected category.
I’ve been trying to read up on lots of stuff over the last month or so and, I have to be honest, really scared myself - particularly reading all the BS spouted by Mermaids. The thought that those people are let loose in schools peddling their pseudoscience to teachers is awful, but again my friend thinks the stuff that gets reported in newspapers is always the worst of the worst as they just want clicks on their pages and I shouldn’t get myself wound up.
I’m actually going to give myself a break from all this over the next few weeks as it’s really getting to me but I was wondering if anyone else thought maybe things won’t be as bad as all the worst case scenarios that are discussed on these boards?
I’m still very much of the belief that gender identity and biological sex are separate things and I think if something could be put in law that makes that distinction clear, surely everything would be fine. Stupid ideology like the crap pushed by Mermaids and the like will be found out eventually and it’s just because they’re riding the wave with the GRA consultation having happened so recently. Teachers are regularly updated on safeguarding and the secrecy aspect would only apply if they thought the child was in actual danger (he gave the example of an extremely religious family who might try taking their child abroad to marry them off or worse, they were from a culture that commit “honour” killings).
Please reassure me that these worst case scenarios are unlikely to happen, or is my friend actually oblivious to very real dangers if these changes go through?

OP posts:
BettyDuMonde · 21/12/2018 11:11

I don’t think we should be scared OP. I think we should be incensed and organised

givenupcaring · 21/12/2018 11:10

Over 300 new GRC granted a year will almost double the number in 15/20 years

Stonewall I beleive it was gave a number of 500,000 people they want to see get GRCs. Thats not doubling that a factor of 100 !

Avegemitesandwich · 21/12/2018 11:04

All the updated GRA will do will allow people who need it a slightly less hassle way to change their gender officially and as it affects such a small number of people (supposedly 1% of the population) it’s really not going to have a massive impact on the vast majority of people. There are no plans to change the Equality Act of 2010, so sex will still be a protected category.

This keeps being bandied around. But if the GRA changes, then anyone will be able to change their legal sex so any sex based protections will essentially become meaningless anyway. If any man can change their legal sex to 'female' at the stroke of a pen, then that is the end of sex based protections surely?

Also, the 'beard' thing was obviously a joke.

givenupcaring · 21/12/2018 10:58

Sadly I disagree.

It would be accurate if transsexualism wasnt demedicalised and continued to be treated as a psychological disorder. However the floodgates have opened to let every fetishist and predator co-opt a label for nefarious ends all in the name of transgenderism.

The Equality Act is being manipulated and twisted by all and sundry. The protected characteristics within it are sex and gender reassignment, specifically stating transssexual. The EA NEVER actually mentions transgender at all; only the medicalised people who are transitioning.

However because the EA states that a person need not have started any treatment (hormones or surgery) it has allowed anyone to make a claim to that protected characteristic.

In my view ONE WORD would have prevented much of where we are now and that is if the EA had said "diagnosed transsexual" rather than just "transsexual".

The dictionary definition of transsexual has changed so much that it is unclear as to what a transsexual actually is.
Ive just looked it up in 3 different dictionaries....
#1 says "a person who emotionally and psychologically feels that they belong to the opposite sex."
#2 says "A transsexual is a person who has decided that they want to live as a person of the opposite sex, and so has changed their name and appearance in order to do this. "
#3 says "a person who has undergone medical and surgical procedures to alter external sexual characteristics to those of the opposite sex"

WallyTheWasher · 21/12/2018 06:06

My friend and I were saying at the start of the year first it will be just a child in the news “transitioning”, then it’ll be a friend of a friend of a friend then, eventually, we will actually start to know individuals who have children who are “trans”, who are being referred etc. And lo she has reported back a trans 7 year old. It’s a creeping cult.
As for social media, I feel better for not being on FB and debating the meaning of woman with idiots. I talk about the subject in real life a lot more now and most real life people get it

gcscience · 21/12/2018 05:56

Great post Vegilante. I hated History as a child, but it becomes ever more compelling.

gcscience · 21/12/2018 05:39

The "beard" reference is just that lots of young, trendy, "woke" dudes who are "feminists" also often have elaborate facial hair.

You realise what prejudice is right? Xmas Hmm

I was going to comment on how unimaginative the OP's friend sounded but got completely sidetracked by that...really wierd (in my opinion) question of "Did he have a beard".

This guy has a beard:
twitter.com/BenjaminABoyce/status/1075114991143927808

Vegilante · 21/12/2018 04:49

Realistically nobody is going to allow a small group of militant trans activists to remove women’s rights

OP, I feel for you & wholeheartedly wish the above were true. Alas:

Overheard in British royal palaces circa 1776: realistically nobody is going to allow a small group of militant independence activists in the American colonies to defeat the Crown

Overheard circa 1789 at Versailles: realistically nobody is going to allow a small group of militant peasant activists to overthrow & execute the French monarchy

The word in St Petersburg & Moscow circa 1917: realistically nobody is going to allow a small group of militant Bolshevik communists to defeat the Tsar & kill him & his whole family

Heard a lot in Europe in the 1930s: realistically nobody is going to allow a small group of militant Nazi nutjobs to remove Jewish & minority rights, wage a world war & slaughter 6 million Jews

Often heard amongst Botha supporters in South Africa in the late 1980s & early 1990s: realistically nobody is going to allow a small group of black ANC activists to overturn apartheid & end white rule

Heard often in the UK & elsewhere from before 2016 through today: realistically nobody is going to allow a small group of militant Euro-skeptics to make the UK leave the EU

Heard often in the USA & elsewhere in 2016: realistically nobody is going to allow a small group of disgruntled Hillary Clinton-haters to elect Donald Trump to the US presidency

Unexpected, seemingly impossible events happen in history all the time. Sadly, we all have good reason to fear the erosion of/assault on women's rights that's going on as we speak today.

OP, please take care of yourself & your baby. You might feel alone right now, but you're not.

NoSquirrels · 21/12/2018 01:28

What a weird response, gcscience.

The "beard" reference is just that lots of young, trendy, "woke" dudes who are "feminists" also often have elaborate facial hair. And the woke bros often don't really think through their position of "support"...

It's a stereotype, sure. I don't think it's that MN feminists are prejudiced against facial hair, though.

OP, totally understand why you posted. It can feel overwhelming and baffling. And really fucking annoying when someone says "Yeah, but it will never happen"... because they don't want to believe that it is happening. Your friend may be right that a majority of people think that trans women shouldn't be allowed to participate in women's sports. Doesn't mean it won't happen or isn't happening.

gcscience · 21/12/2018 00:06

Has he got a beard?

This is such a pathetic prejudiced comment: admittedly, having a beard or being clean-shaven is a position of choice, unlike some things about one's body eg height. However, it is a natural biological part of being an adult human male. If more men had beards perhaps so many women wouldn't feel impelled to shave off their smattering of facial hair. Interestingly, in India, I noticed, that many men have beards and few women appear to shave their faces.

Just pathetic in every way, and not what I expect from mumsnet. Even if bearded men tend to be lame in some way, not all are surely. Pure prejudice like stop it.

Original poster
Notevenmyrealname · 20/12/2018 22:40

why does one man putting forward an opposing view weigh so much in your head?
It doesn’t particularly but, like I said in app, I have immersed myself in this quite a lot recently and wasn’t sure if maybe I was becoming a little detached from reality. I’m pregnant atm and have been spending a fair amount of time in bed with various ailments. I originally came onto Mumsnet discussing pregnancy related things but have got drawn into the feminism board gradually. There have been some days when other than the odd phone call with my mum and a short conversation with my DH about his day before one of us falls asleep on the sofa, I have no contact with other adults at all. It was a conversation I had this morning so had been thinking about it over the course of the day that’s all.

OP posts:
Vegilante · 20/12/2018 22:38

You & your friend are being willfully naive, I fear. Show him this:

R0wantrees · 20/12/2018 22:31

He’s not a complete arrogant wanker and that wasn’t his tone, but I do think maybe he wasn’t being very empathetic and was showing his male privilege in this particular instance.

The majority of people do not know.
HR departments really shold be getting up to speed as a priority, but not by blindly taking Stonewall's training.

Ask him what his Diversity/ Inclusion policy has listed as protected characteristics.

There should be 9.

Sex is one, Gender reassignment is another.

Gender and Gender Identity are not protectected characteristics.

Lots of Diversity and Equality policies incorrectly quote the 2010 Equality Act.
If sex isn't listed, then there's an issue.

Hohocabbage · 20/12/2018 22:25

But I’m not understanding why you are giving so much credence to his views. You’ve said you are of a mind with many posters on here, so why does one man putting forward an opposing view weigh so much in your head?

NewbieSpartacus · 20/12/2018 22:22
  1. As stated above, women already being thrown under the bus.
  2. The power of their propaganda is almost destroying a generation. Of my two teens, one is trans and the other's partner is. Kids have been told they can choose and it is hugely damaging.
Original poster
Notevenmyrealname · 20/12/2018 22:17

I’m glad you had an expert man friend to tell you not to worry.
I’ve painted him in a very bad light. He’s not a complete arrogant wanker and that wasn’t his tone, but I do think maybe he wasn’t being very empathetic and was showing his male privilege in this particular instance.

OP posts:
R0wantrees · 20/12/2018 22:16

Notevenmyrealname

He should have a look at Stonewall's trans inclusion in the workplace training.

Its been adopted by many influential organisations including Parliament.

Also worth discussing Philip / Pips Bunce who is a senior manager at Credit Suisse (& Stonewall Champion).
HR managers need to be aware that they may have a future Philip /Pips or Stephen /Steph etc coming to speak with them about how the company will support their gender identity.

Squigglicious · 20/12/2018 22:16

Those militant people your friend is referring to probably didn’t have the massive institutional support the TRAs have. A fish in a fishtank is not the same as a shoal of fish in the sea.

VickyEadie · 20/12/2018 22:09

"She posted pictures of her exposed penis".

There it is - right there. Female pronouns already mean nothing.

DodoPatrol · 20/12/2018 22:09

The thought that those people are let loose in schools peddling their pseudoscience to teachers is awful, but again my friend thinks the stuff that gets reported in newspapers is always the worst of the worst

How old are his children?

If primary age, has he asked them how they know who is a boy and who is a girl?

If secondary age, has he asked them how many transgender children there are in their school, and which changing rooms they use?

Has he asked them whether they have been told that people can choose their gender/choose to become a boy/girl?

Would he mind if his teenage daughter came home and announced that she was a boy, wanted a binder and hormones and had changed her name?

That's what has happened to more than one of our friends as their daughters hit mid-teens. Excuse me if I don't find it wonderful that these lovely kids are potentially looking at a lifetime of medical intervention.

Hohocabbage · 20/12/2018 22:09

I’m glad you had an expert man friend to tell you not to worry.

Original poster
Notevenmyrealname · 20/12/2018 22:04

MagicMix
I totally agree with your take on privilege. You often don’t realise you have it until someone else points out that they don’t. That has happened to me in the past.

OP posts:
Original poster
Notevenmyrealname · 20/12/2018 22:02

Does he have children?
He does and that’s how the conversation came about in the first place as I was talking about some of the things I’d been reading about Mermaids. He didn’t really know anything about that so was just speculating about the secrecy thing.
He doesn’t support biological males taking part in women’s sport. He said it seems to be mediocre men trying to get some glory and thinks it’s stupid. He believes most people would not be supportive of that so thinks it will probably be legislated against eventually.
He has had experience of dealing with a variety of militant individuals over the years (political people, TU reps, etc.) and the only word I can think of to describe the way he is is jaded. He’s definitely not “woke”. I think this is probably where the issue lies in that he’s become complacent that it’s just another crazy bunch of idiots but common sense will prevail. He’s my friend and a decent human being overall so I’m obviously going to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I wasn’t convinced he had the full picture and the general consensus on here is that I’m right.
I don’t know if he will do his own research into Mermaids as he didn’t really seem to know much about them and he doesn’t have anything to do with schools in his job only with his own children but again he thought it would be unlikely that they could undermine a strong relationship between a child and their parents and my claims of “it’s tantamount to grooming” were an overreaction. To be honest, I think maybe it’s just because it’s not affected him directly yet and he’s looking at it from a distance but I also really want to not feel so horrified every time I read a news item so wanted to entertain the idea that he might be right.
Does he have a beard
I’m sorry I don’t know what this is in reference to.
You and your “friend” are choosing not to see it
What does this comment mean? I thought I was quite clear that I am of the same opinion as most people on this board but I’m relatively new to the subject so have only been reading stuff for the last month or two. Sometimes I’m not sure whether I’ve just immersed myself in it too much and maybe I need to step back and get some perspective. He is my friend and he does work in HR, and in general I agree with him on a lot of things so when he expressed this opinion about this topic I just wanted to check. I might have to work on him a bit more to point out some of the more pertinent arguments.

OP posts:
ZuttZeVootEeeVro · 20/12/2018 21:57

lassupthebrew. Time will tell, I guess. Over 300 new GRC granted a year will almost double the number in 15/20 years, though, even accounting for those who detransition and deaths. But that is still a relatively small number of grc issued.

It's not just self id that could increase the number of applicants. Those transgender people who don't feel the need to obtain a GRC might apply if organisations demand a GRC to access sex segregated spaces. Of course, it could go the other way, and fewer and fewer people might seek GRC if sex segregation is abandoned.

R0wantrees · 20/12/2018 21:43

Dr Jane Claire Jones analysis:

"So, over the last few days a few people have asked me to deal with this delight from Professor Joanne Conaghan.

So, I'm gonna do a paragraph-by-paragraph fisk-type thing.

legalresearch.blogs.bris.ac.uk/2018/12/sex-ge…

  1. Yes, the 'debate' is a mess, and yes ppl aren't listening to each other.

BUT, when there is a collision between rights claims, I'm not sure it's a great idea to attribute it to 'unkindness.' Especially not when it's one group asking another to cede rights, and telling them

they're unkind' for resisting, especially especially not when the ones being allegedly 'unkind' have a massive gendered expectation of 'being kind' that is been widely leveraged against them.

A part of my philosophical training is in Care Ethics. I'm actually a big believer
in empathy, and the knowledge it gives us, and on revaluing that along feminist lines. But using the valuation of empathy to tell women that they need to place other people's political interests above their own is just bullshit feministing.

Nil point.

  1. 'So, this is the bit where I'm going to show how well we should listen to each other by presenting trans claims as 'perfectly proper' and feminist claims as 'misgivings' and am going to completely fail to deal with the extensive legal analysis as to why there is a conflict

between self-ID and the single sex exemptions in the EA2010.'

Here's @Julian_Norman1:

"Amendment of the GRA...will inevitably have an immediate and potentially destructive impact on the sex based exemptions provided under EqA 2010."

docs.google.com/document/d/1b7…
Here is also an interesting thread from a few days ago re: the different but related issue of the provision of cervical smears: (continues)

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1075783838217973760.html