Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Law Commission Reviewing Hate Crime Law - Sex or Gender?

33 replies

gardenbird48 · 11/12/2020 12:40

hi all, I could have sworn that there was a thread on this already with lots of useful points but can't find it atm - either my search skills or deleted?

Anyway, the Law Commission are consulting on this (I'm so sure there is a thread - can anyone point me to it please) and are considering putting Gender in place of Sex. Apparently they note that the public want Sex not Gender and that it has been strongly argued that violence against women and girls is strongly connected to the biology (no shit) BUT.....

the provisional view is that Gender is the 'more inclusive term'. They also note elsewhere that transwomen face unique transphobic discrimination. If that is the case, why can't women face unique misogynistic discrimination?

I remember one of the points on the old thread being that transwomen can face violence as would be directed at women but it is only because they resemble a woman and not actually because of their sex. It would be interesting to get some more thoughts on how using Gender instead of Sex will disadvantage women in this matter - can any of you amazing thinkers help please? I'm at the point where I know it feels very wrong but can't articulate why.

consult.justice.gov.uk/law-commission/hate-crime/

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Imnobody4 · 15/12/2020 11:48

Interesting but long report by Joanna Williams which might be useful for anyone like me still procrastinating. I particularly like the concept of Hate Crime Entrepreneurs for groups that have a vested interest in increasing the protected categories like Stonewall etc. It's quite easy to navigate and pick what's relevant.
www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/Policing-Hate.pdf

BewaretheIckabog · 14/12/2020 01:06

I was about to say I have a deep-rooted philosophical belief that people cannot change sex.

It shows how far down the rabbit hole I am. What I should say is my understanding of science and biology is that people cannot change sex.

xxyzz · 14/12/2020 00:56

"the provisional view is that Gender is the 'more inclusive term'. They also note elsewhere that transwomen face unique transphobic discrimination. If that is the case, why can't women face unique misogynistic discrimination?"

As I noted in the thread on boundaries and inclusion/exclusion, the idea that being "inclusive" is necessarily a good thing or desirable is itself a value judgement, not an automatic truth.

Why would we want the category of "the female sex" to be "inclusive" of some men (or potentially all men, if self-ID is used)? The category by definition is exclusive, it is designed to define and protect an oppressed group, women. There is no more need for women to include any of the oppressor group in the category " women" than there is for black people to include white people in the category "black".

Where did this idea that women were not allowed to have any boundaries, and indeed that women having boundaries is hateful, come from??

On the contrary, women are allowed to have boundaries and say who they wish to include in their spaces, share their sex-specific rights with, etc.

Even if some women are OK with throwing the door open to all and sundry, that does not mean that the category is therefore negated and the boundary thrown down, because there are still huge numbers of women who want and need that boundary to remain.

I would be challenging why they think "inclusive" = de facto a good thing, and what evidence they have that including biological males in the category of biological females is going to be effective in reducing sex discrimination or attacks on women. If they are going to suggest something so ludicrous, they need to explain precisely why they only think attacks on transwomen matter but attacks on women and women's rights to have boundaries don't.

OhHolyJesus · 13/12/2020 19:35

Linking to latest from @NonnyMouse1337 as excellent points made re Scottish bill that could be applied in general to hate crime.

Scotland - Ask your MSPs to call for more changes to Hate Crime Bill before debate on Tuesday 15 December www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4103821-Scotland-Ask-your-MSPs-to-call-for-more-changes-to-Hate-Crime-Bill-before-debate-on-Tuesday-15-December

OhHolyJesus · 12/12/2020 22:00

Linking to a thread where I am posting my notes from the Webinar, what I got to attend anyway...

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4098335-Law-Commission-Q-A-on-reforming-hate-crime-laws-10-Dec-14-00-15-30-GMT?watched=1&msgid=102566307#102566307

OhHolyJesus · 12/12/2020 21:57

@gardenbird48

I like the idea of a resource thread - is there any special status for setting one up or is it just a named normal thread?
No special status - just as MNHQ to amend the thread title to draw attention to this being the resources thread.
Barracker · 12/12/2020 10:18

Judge: we believe you hit that woman because you hate her gender.
Defendant: I don't believe in gender
Victim: I have a sex, not a gender
Judge: oh ok, no hate crime here because sex isn't a hate crime characteristic. Case dismissed.

Imnobody4 · 12/12/2020 09:17

Just discovered Maya's case is being quoted in relation to the Grainger test.

14.169 Importantly, Grainger held that the requirement that a protected belief be “worthy of respect in a democratic society and not incompatible with human dignity or in conflict with the fundamental rights of others”,
197 necessarily excludes “objectionable” political philosophies.

198 The ET (Employment Tribunal) stated this criterion would exclude protection of “racist or homophobic political philosophy” and more recently, “absolutist” views of sex.

I feel this is dubious because it's heading for appeal.
Maybe we need to address this question on philosophical belief as well.

Consultation Question 20.
14.217 We invite consultees’ views on whether “philosophical beliefs” should be recognised as a hate crime category

Original poster
gardenbird48 · 11/12/2020 20:49

@nauticant

How is asexual transgender?

Asexuality isn't even asexual!

www.uis.edu/gendersexualitystudentservices/students/a-guide-to-asexuality/

Asexuality is not a synonym for celibacy. (There are celibate aces and promiscuous aces and aces everywhere in between.)

I sooo don't get this (two sherries and two wines down is not helping). How can you be a promiscuous asexual?? Does that mean you just go off and have sex with people who make the decision that you are going to have sex with them rather than being sexually attracted to them yourself and participating in the decision to have sex?? I'm confused.

Along with a sexual orientation, people have what’s called a romantic or affectional orientation that describes who that person might be romantically attracted to. In many people, the sexual and romantic orientations are aligned, so people tend not to think about them being separate concepts. It is not uncommon for asexuals to experience romantic attraction.

I note in this description that, similarly to the moves to create separate concepts of Sex and Gender, there is an effort to separate the concept of Sexual Orientation from 'Romantic' attraction (described as orientation) - I have no idea how this plays out in real life (if it actually does) but it interesting that this could be another point of breaking down what we would normally expect to all be incorporated into a loving adult relationship.

OP posts:
BettyFilous · 11/12/2020 20:30

@nauticant

How is asexual transgender?

Asexuality isn't even asexual!

www.uis.edu/gendersexualitystudentservices/students/a-guide-to-asexuality/

Asexuality is not a synonym for celibacy. (There are celibate aces and promiscuous aces and aces everywhere in between.)

Say what?
lionheart · 11/12/2020 18:18

Filled it in -- as much as I was able and included definitions taken from Stonewall to underline the point about what trans and non-binary mean ...

allmywhat · 11/12/2020 17:35

Shouldn't it be pointed out that domestic violence tends to begin when a woman is pregnant? I don't see how you could be aware of even basic facts about misogynistic violence directed against women and not understand that sex not gender is what matters, but... here we are.

Original poster
gardenbird48 · 11/12/2020 17:27

I like the idea of a resource thread - is there any special status for setting one up or is it just a named normal thread?

OP posts:
Original poster
gardenbird48 · 11/12/2020 17:25

Thanks all - I think that is the response.

The legal status of the word - it is not a widely understood term, many people don't believe in the concept of 'gender' (other than as a grammatical device) - my lovely m-i-l wouldn't have the first idea of what I was talking about if I mentioned it.

In a normal world, they wouldn't even be asking this question would they? Shall we include a word in our definition that has no universal meaning and has never been legally defined....??

When we were involved with some legal stuff, literally (sorry for that overused word) everything in the contracts and communications was clearly and explicitly defined (I think we had a little list for some things) - that is how law works.

OP posts:
Ereshkigalangcleg · 11/12/2020 13:30

And that's what any legal challenges should make clear.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 11/12/2020 13:29

There is no legal definition of gender, it is a disputed term. You don't change laws from clarity to ambiguity, it should be the other way round.

I completely agree. Gender does also mean personal identity labels like the myumbrella list mentioned. And this is how we should attack it. It's too vague, inconsistent and ambiguous as a quasi legal term to provide three separate protected characteristics with the necessary legal protection and support their individual needs.

YouNoob · 11/12/2020 13:23

This might be helpful:

www.citizensuk.org/misogyny-hate-crime-report-launch

Imnobody4 · 11/12/2020 13:22

I discovered a new gender the other day 'circumgender', going round in bloody circles presumably.

nauticant · 11/12/2020 13:18

How is asexual transgender?

Asexuality isn't even asexual!

www.uis.edu/gendersexualitystudentservices/students/a-guide-to-asexuality/

Asexuality is not a synonym for celibacy. (There are celibate aces and promiscuous aces and aces everywhere in between.)

OhHolyJesus · 11/12/2020 13:13

We need a resources thread with all previous threads linked and thoughts on how to respond, or points to note in submission to the consultation. This was done for the GRA and Surrogacy consultations. I think we could build it up on this thread?

I have brief notes from yesterday's webinar to type up and share and I will do so over the weekend.

Once I have read the guidance docs I will share further thoughts. I imagine there will be lost of traps in language to fall into.

If anyone has a special interest in this and wants to do something off the boards please DM me.

YouNoob · 11/12/2020 13:12

Let's not forget otherkin...

Original poster
gardenbird48 · 11/12/2020 13:05

@YouNoob

(I apologise for not being helpful.)
it did make me laugh though - I quite fancy Tetrisgender for now Grin

sadly myumbrella, a trans organisation advocating for the 371 lesser known genders and furries took down their helpful list so I've got no idea what I want to be when I grow up :¬))

OP posts:
Imnobody4 · 11/12/2020 13:04

There is no legal definition of gender, it is a disputed term. You don't change laws from clarity to ambiguity, it should be the other way round.

BewaretheIckabog · 11/12/2020 13:03

Gender may be the more inclusive view but gender and sex are not the same thing.

If inclusivity is what is wanted perhaps they should just include men who identify as men too.

This is not about inclusivity.

Swipe left for the next trending thread