Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Julie Bindel piece interviewing a now-dissenting Yogyakarta drafter

35 replies

NecessaryScene1 · 01/04/2021 10:46

Interesting new piece in The Critic:

OP posts:
jellyfrizz · 01/04/2021 11:52

@ahagwearsapointybonnet

Sounds like another classic example of what happens when you don't have women sufficiently represented at the table - or only "represented" by males.
Yes!
EmbarrassingAdmissions · 01/04/2021 11:52

Then Wintemute should do something to rectify this, perhaps?

Something more than a, "Woops"?

ahagwearsapointybonnet · 01/04/2021 11:51

Incidentally I hate when people recommend using the Yog. principle of "Don't ask people their pronouns/gender ID" (paraphrased as can't remember exact wording) as a response to being asked to share pronouns in signatures/at meetings. While it might seem a useful response, these "principles' were, as shown here, drawn up by a group with their own agenda, with little or no input from women or consideration of women's rights, and have AFAIK no particular authority, so we should not be quoting and legitimising them, even when it might occasionally seem to suit our purposes.

WagnersFourthSymphony · 01/04/2021 11:50

It's in The Critic so will be ignored, sadly. Or at best, denounced because it's in The Critic.

It's got to be picked up by a left wing journal to be taken seriously and we've got a long wait before that happens. So long as only right wing media, or those perceived to be right wing, are the only ones carrying even vaguely gc stories then women's sex-based rights will be regarded as a right wing issue. Sad

ahagwearsapointybonnet · 01/04/2021 11:28

Sounds like another classic example of what happens when you don't have women sufficiently represented at the table - or only "represented" by males.

PaleBlueMoonlight · 01/04/2021 11:27

I think this should be vitally important. But probably it will be air brushed and ignored.

jellyfrizz · 01/04/2021 11:05

@ArabellaScott

It is a very interesting piece. The architect of the Yogyakarta principles sounds a bit gc, doesn't he?
The natural conclusion of thinking through how such proposals will affect females.
ArabellaScott · 01/04/2021 10:57

It is a very interesting piece. The architect of the Yogyakarta principles sounds a bit gc, doesn't he?

ArabellaScott · 01/04/2021 10:56

'The majority of the 2006 Yogyakarta signatories were men and trans men. “The issue of access to single-sex spaces largely affects women and not men. So it was easy for the men in the group to be swept along by concern for LGBT rights and ignore this issue,” '

Original poster
NecessaryScene1 · 01/04/2021 10:48

Looks like I accidentally hit "post".

The trans rights that trump all

Having considered the Principles’ implications for women, Wintemute says he should have challenged references to “self-defined gender identity” and to “changes to identity documents [being] recognised in all contexts” in Principle 3. “If I had thought through the implications of Principle 3,” says Wintemute, “I would have had to consider the potential for conflict with women’s rights, but I didn’t.” Neither, so far as he knows, did anyone else at the meeting at which the Principles were drafted. “Women’s rights weren’t raised.”

Given the number of human rights experts at the meeting, including a dozen former UN special rapporteurs and committee members, this was a surprising failing, Wintemute admits. The European Convention on Human Rights makes very clear that certain rights may be restricted if they impact on “the rights and freedoms of others”.

He explains: “There was a feeling that transgender people have suffered and they are saying this is what is needed — the implications of no surgery and self-ID had not dawned on us back in 2006. So far as I remember nobody was thinking about males with intact genitals gaining access to women’s spaces.”

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread