Just when you thought Everyday Transactivism could no longer surprise * title edited by MNHQ*

[mirrorisnotmyfriend]

They come up with this.

First post - Why Transwomen Aren't Biologically Male.
www.facebook.com/everydayfeminism/

The comments are encouraging though, that is, the ones that haven't been deleted. Lots of people questioning and calling this out.

KittiesInsane

Your son sounds brilliant. And well done to that 'no nonsense' therapist.

Why can't being flamboyant and enjoying a colourful, creative clothing be just that? Why does it have to be indicative of something deeper, more meaningful, more profound? Why isn't it just fun?

kitties I don't have time to reposed prop leery but just wanted to say that your son sounds brilliant.

Datun crossed posts, I totally agree

Mary I think these webchats are a great chance to directly speak to politicians who are so much in their so-called progressive bubble that they don't apply any critical thinking to trans issues. They probably dismiss us as those bigoted women but it's worthwhile to take the chance to speak directly to people who are not generally listening to our concerns.

I don't think we should be just talking amongst ourselves, It's being debated in parliament this week and changes to the law are imminent

This^

As a matter of interest, does anyone know how Mhari Black, the young SNP MP and a lesbian, views this issue?

Thanks! He is rather a nice chap.

He will still say of his GNC schoolfriends, though, that 'Alex* is really trans. I was just having a bad patch, but she's really trans. And Charlie is agender, and...'

I haven't asked how he knows, and I presume he's too polite, kind and accepting to ask how they, personally, know the difference between a bad patch and a lifelong need.

*Names changed...

And for that matter Ruth Davidson and Kezia Dugdale, leaders of the Scottish Tories and Labour respectively who are lesbians. Can't imagine them being too pleased with the cotton ceiling bollocks

Harriet's going to ignore it too isn't she? That or throw out a woolly disclaimer like Jess did.

Harriet's going to ignore it too isn't she?

Yup. Another politician to add to the list of those happy to throw the rights of biological females under the pink bus.

Happy or scared?

They all talk about not being scared to tackle the tough issues, listening to the public. Then they contradict themselves with their actions.

I'm biting my tongue sitting on my hands because HH has posted this 'Right now, part of the reason why people are not listening to us is that they think we're not listening to them.' while systematically ignoring the 6 or 7 questions on the trans issue.

I can't quite decide if it's a lack of self awareness having posted that comment, a calculated strategy to say you are concerned that your party isn't listening while doing just that, or self preservation.

Taking what I said back. That's probably the best response we've ever had from an MP on this issue.

Ok I'll take that back. She's finally answered one.

Right now, part of the reason why people are not listening to us is that they think we're not listening to them.

I, too, wondered if this was some kind of code.

It was a great response.

But I'm not sure HH fully understands the implications of the bill - that if this new acceptance of gender identity does go through, the extent to which it will be transphobic to state that a transwoman is anything other than a woman.

Of course we know what we mean by women only spaces and I'm sure HH means the same thing but that is precisely what we won't be able to specify under the new legislation, I think? Surely transwomen would just be able to say "but we are women" and therefore have the right to access to women only spaces?

The only real protection is if we have a definition of women that excludes transwomen. Which the whole TRA movement is determined to wipe out.

Very Eeyore of me, I know, but I can't see how HH's vision would work in practice.

Anyway. While we're on the subject, could someone please tell me - if anyone knows for sure - does this new bill really propose to do away with the category of sex as a protected characteristic and replace it with gender identity? Because that's the impression I'm getting from some quarters.

Or is "gender identity" intended to replace the current "gender reassignment" category while leaving the sex category intact? In which case, things aren't quite so drastic.

I'm not sure where to find the answer. if anyone knows, TIA!

As far as I understand it, the trans equality report has a few recommendations for changing the equality act and the gender recognition act which taken alone are workable, but put together do effectively mean an end to women's spaces:

• replace gender reassignment with gender identity in the EA - so non-binary people and others who don't identify with either male or female are protected, people don't need to go through any reassignment process, it's all on how they identify.

• remove exemptions in the EA for single-sex facilities and services and occupational requirements so that trans must be included in the sex with which they identify, if they have a GRC.

• remove any 'gatekeeping' requirements for getting a GRC - change it to self-identification.

Those are the report recommendations though. We don't yet have the wording of the bill, which should be published before Friday's debate.

Have started a separate thread to discuss the HH response, because there are comments split over various different threads. Let's draw it all together ...

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/2859462-Harriet-Harman-webchat-her-responses-to-the-self-identification-question

The Philosopher's Arms on Radio 4 right now is covering gender identity and "the male-female binary" and is making a right old mess of confusing gender and sex.

They seem to be content with the concept that intersex means that binary is an illusion and everything can be considered to be inbetween. Sex is mutable and is a matter of one's point of view.

This is very much in the mainstream. Depressing.

Thanks Pencils' I was wondering why I couldn't find the exact wording of the new bill!

nauticant - that's really grim

raisin

Yes. And of course, none of the ideology is logical.

I just can't imagine how stupid/blind/misogynistic you would have to be to create a legal definition of the word woman that applied to people with penises.

God knows what they were smoking that day.

The logic is completely absurd. However, plenty of people will say 'oh they aren't representative of trans people, most trans people don't think that way' whilst refusing to acknowledge that if you follow the logic it takes you to Danielle Muscato being a literal woman and sex being socially constructed.

You have Blair white making YouTube videos slating Danielle Muscato for making no effort to pass but if woman is just a state of mind then Danielle is just as much a woman as Blair is.
You have liberal feminists saying that trans women are women but knowing they mean trans women on hormones and under gender identity clinics, without acknowledging that their logic means that anyone who says they are a woman is a woman.
Liberals saying that Caitlin Jenner is a brave woman whilst Rachel dolezal is a racist.
There is no logical consistency at all.

I wonder what would happen if the legislation is properly challenged in court.

If a transwoman is a woman, the question would have to be to ask for evidence.

Since nothing in science backs up the assertion. You would still be left with a feeling in someone's head.

I think a lot of people generally believe there is some science that backs it up. The 'born in the wrong body' narrative seems to have been accepted without question.

I think if most people thought there was no science whatsoever to back any of this up and it was literally just down to somebody having a feeling (that they can't describe and doesn't stand up to scrutiny), they might be surprised.

I wish scientists and doctors would come out to say what they truly think about it. I'd welcome all views - Even if they think there is evidence to show a biological/scientific reason that backs the ideology that gender should take precedence over biology as we understand it. I just don't trust the evidence i see being put forward as being impartial.