A call to action against "gender identity" laws.

[WitchingHour666]

Please sign and share this petition, if you are concerned about "gender identity" replacing biological sex in law.

www.change.org/p/theresa-may-mp-a-review-of-how-laws-based-on-gender-identity-conflict-with-laws-based-on-biological-sex?recruiter=607651790&utm_source=share_for_starters&utm_medium=copyLink

The basic beliefs that sex = biological, gender = self identity?

Not at all. But I refuse to be drawn into yet another tedious debate.

It would be helpful to know what you perceive to be wrong with it - people don't always get things exactly right, if its a matter of 'tone' maybe could be improved upon? I don't think it's a matter of you needing to justify your thoughts - more that constructive criticism is always better than vague objections IYSWIM.

Is there a Mumsnet equivalent of vaguebooking?

I'm not sure what is vague about I don't think that I could align myself with the basic beliefs of the originators of it. Therefore I will not sign it.

I won't sign this because I don't want to be associated or have the fact that I have signed this particular petition "owned" by the originators of it because I do not think that my own thoughts about feminism/trans. rights etc. align with theirs. Even though I do think there is a great deal of substance to the text of the petition itself. That is not vague.

Similarly i wouldn't sign a petition got up by The Daily Mail or PETA, even if I was in broad agreement with the contents.

Do you know who created the petition? I thought it had been created anonymously?

That's an interesting pov though as to whether to support something you agree with when you have issues with the person/organisation proposing.

It is fairly vague in terms of your reasons for not signing. Not that you have to sign, of course.

But the polite request was for more information about why you won't sign. And you've more or less repeated that you won't sign because you don't agree with the originator of the petition. Which is not really helpful in terms of understanding why you don't agree with it.

Signed. Agree about sharing too. I could potentially be in trouble at work for sharing this on twitter. Which just illustrates how far down the wrong road we have already traveled.

Camena

I can tell by the text at the bottom of the petition that my personal thoughts and beliefs surrounding feminism and trans. issues do not align with those of the originators of the petition.

So. Even though I agree with the broad outline of the ideas presented in the petition I could not sign it and therefore give them (the originators) my tacit support. Especially as they have very understandably decided to remain anonymous.

It is possible to come to the same conclusion despite getting there from very different principles and schools of thought.

I do not understand why you think this is
a) vague
or
b) unreasonable.

I don't agree with it because I don't agree with it. For reasons.

You're right, completely crystal clear. My apologies.

Camena I think you are being deliberately provocative or unfortunately dim. Which is a shame.

As I said, I would not sign a petition even if I agreed with the contents of said petition if it was started by say, The Daily Mail or Peta or the SWP because I would not wish to give THEM my support. I would not want my voice "owned" by them.

This means that if I found a similar petition hosted by people or organisations I did broadly agree with I would not hesitate to sign it. I would not object to them "claiming" my voice.

I do not understand why you find this a difficult concept.

Can someone tell me what happens after 500 signatures?

Signed. Can I ask why some are scared to share?

Signed and shared on my Facebook. Also I fear accidentally shared on DD1's Facebook. I've told her before about leaving it open on the family PC though!

Lucy some are scared to share because the level of vitriol that can come flying at women perceived as being TERFS knocks the efforts of the more bonkers Remoaners to shame.

alpaca I've shared on my fb but just friends not public. I totally understand those being worried though

Gerda - thanks - I think I get what you are saying now. But ... I think its something like that you don't want to lend support to TERFs.... but what the end of the text is pointing out how terf is a slur stuck onto women who are just trying to speak out on these issues. Seems to have stuck damn good.

I will not and cannot align my voice with those of people who are labelled terfs (either by themselves or others). I have many of the same concerns as them, I am particularly horrified by the early identification of trans children and believe very strongly in working towards a world in which anyone can express themselves however they damn well please without it carrying a gender signifier.

But I do not currently believe that the Sex/gender/hormone/brain/whatever boat has sailed scientifically. I think and will continue to think that more research needs to be done before we claim that all characteristics are marked forever by the way our chromosomes fall at conception . And there is very good scientific research on both sides of the debate, it is far too early to early for either "side" to claim they are right. And I know how most of the MN contingent feel about this, so debating it yet again would be futile and terribly dull.

For that reason I think that the law shouldn't be tampered with yet (if ever).

So if someone could point me towards a similar petition that has been mooted by others with whom I might have more common ground I will gladly sign it.

I'm hiding this thread now, because I think I have said all I can say without it turning into another tedious trans bunfight.

I will not and cannot align my voice with those of people who are labelled terfs (either by themselves or others)

We do not label ourselves TERFS. It is an insult. So if I am understanding this right, you refuse to support us, even though you agree with much of it, because others insult us and call us names (and say die in a fire etc) Good for you re the courage of your convictions

Signed but can't share as have a friend who's child is trans

TERF is a bit of a dodgy term tbh, as 'we' (though I don't class myself as a femininst, I as terf simply for some of my opinions apparently) do not exclude trans people at all. 'We' disagree with men being called women and expecting thoughts to come above biology. However, 'we' include transmen. So...how is that trans-exclusionary?

Exactly Wanking. When ever I agree with the rights of trans-people to be free from discrimination, etc, I am also going to make it crystal clear that, for me certainly, transmen are to be included in female spaces. On the basis of their sex. NOT trans exclusionary at all.

Sad fact is, many of us are in that 'common ground' ... Gerda would probably be labelled a Terf too, by the TA types for her sane and moderate views.

Signed and shared on Facebook but I'm scared now.

Signed