Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

BBC News on gender identity law - mentions us!

74 replies

YetAnotherSpartacus · 31/07/2017 10:32

The link is here

www.bbc.com/news/uk-40713645

OP posts:
Elendon · 31/07/2017 18:41

Abortion is up to 24 weeks for most people in the UK (excluding Northern Ireland)

It can be carried out after this.

www.nhs.uk/conditions/Abortion/Pages/Introduction.aspx

As women are considered infantile when it comes to health choices, it does require two signatures from doctors to access these arrangements.

Further information

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_Kingdom

But please also remember, although the abortion law in the UK, with the exception of Northern Ireland, is amongst the best in Europe there is also the offences against the person act.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offences_against_the_Person_Act_1861

And you can be prosecuted under this law if you do not abide by the rules of the abortion act.

AssassinatedBeauty · 31/07/2017 18:42

Sorry I did mean 24 weeks, no idea why I put 20. I know you can have abortions after this time frame but only for a very specific set of circumstances, it isn't universal and on demand.

user1498662042 · 31/07/2017 18:52

Interesting comment Tartle, thanks.

I think you are right that there are these vestigial notions of female purity and the 'dirty girl' that originated in a system of oppression predicated on reproduction; and neither am I denying that misogyny or patriarchy no longer exists, just that the nature of it has changed.

The sexual revolution has been a bit of a double edged sword for women. On the one hand, it gave them contraception and, along with the advent of the market economy, got them out of the role of domestic server; but on the other hand it got co-opted by consumer capitalism in two seconds flat and women went from reproductive and domestic servants to sexualised market commodities. Semi-arranged marriages came to be replaced by dating culture, which was obviously a good thing; but at the same time that meant partner selection became a kind of market, with women, inevitably, as the commodity.

Now we're in the information age all that has gone completely off the scale. Misogyny is very real, but it is less and less a matter of women trapped in reproductive and domestic roles while men go out to work. This isn't me being all 'just think of the poor menz', but things have been tough for a lot of men - and I mean working class men - since Maggie and her successors got rid of a lot of their jobs. As a consequence, the male worker with his woman doing her domestic duties at home is no longer a governing paradigm of capitalism. Capitalism has no use of male braun anymore, and it would much rather the woman is out earning. Now the female secretary, if she has a full time job, is in quite a privileged position compared to the unemployed docker.

So how is the women still oppressed? Paradoxically, in almost the complete opposite way she used to be. She is a pure sexual plaything for men and nothing more. A relationship with all the confinements of romantic fealty is the last thing many sexist men want, let alone a baby. All they want is a fuck. If they're hard done by economically, they might resent all the erotic culture the sexualised young woman appears to have. All that power she seems to have! All those men wanting her! So he hates the 'sluts' even more. He isn't even objectified. Being used is perhaps better than not being wanted for anything at all - isn't it?
Capitalism is doing a very good job of playing men and women against one another through fuelling virulent sexist tropes.

Oh I forgot to mention the women who aren't sexy, or middle-class, or educated, or have the kind of pretty faces and winning smiles that get them jobs on reception desks - they're just ignored - or are what a particularly odious acquaintance of mine used to refer as the 'leftovers' . that he felt he would have to resort to if he failed to pull a hottie on a Saturday night.

All a bit of a mess, really.

Datun · 31/07/2017 18:56

Tartle

Agree with that post. And it answers something that was bothering me too.

I believe the agreed sociological definition of oppression is that the class doing the oppressed has to gain from it.

Perhaps traditionally, the number of children was incredibly important. Due to infant mortality, maternal death, etc. And a father to son passing on of skills, jobs and positions.

Which is not so much the case now.

But men still gain from patriarchy.

Women raising the children, being supportive and being fuckable, for a start.

It's very interesting, that the more gains that women make up the power hierarchy, there seems to be a direct correlation into the degradation and demeaning of them in pornography.

Online dating, social media etc. There is an instant assumption from many men that it's all about getting to fuck the woman and nothing else.

It's completely normalised.

And whilst reproducing might not be seen as the top of a young man's list, that's probably more due to the increased availability of women as populations expand.

In fact, in China, the abortion policy is having a direct financial effect. Young men are finding fewer women with whom to reproduce, so they are trying to make themselves more marriageable by saving all their money. Like a dowry, I guess The lack of spending is actually having an impact.

There are all sorts of advantages that men have when oppressing women. I guess they just ebb and flow with history.

Unfortunately, the system just self perpetuates. Although, women are making inroads. The next few hundred years will be interesting.

Having said that, you can see the fear, as evidenced by the transgender laws. And the election of Donald Trump.

Elendon · 31/07/2017 19:04

I meant to come on here to say yes, I noticed this on the website and to praise Tartle for that brilliant and wonderful post.

It should be a post as a start of these feminism boards.

Can Mumsnet arrange this? This is the post from Tartle

Not claiming to speak for everyone but in a nutshell the position is:

  1. There is a difference between biological sex which is a real, observable scientific fact and gender (sex role stereotypes) which is the behaviours seen by society to be associated with men and women which change over time and across cultures.

  2. Gender is a hierarchy, a system of control designed to keep women submissive and dependent on order to control their reproductive capacity

  3. that anyone should be able to dress, behave and act however they like (within the limits of the law) but adopting the sex role stereotypes of the opposite sex does not make you become that sex and does not stop the fact that women are oppressed because of their biology, not their hairstyles or shopping preferences.

  4. Over the past hundred or so years women as the oppressed class (who experience endemic levels of sex based violence) have organised and worked together to put in place a number of sex based concessions that allow them more equal to access public life (although there is still some way to go with this) this includes public lavatories, separate categories in sporting competitions, maternity rights, single sex hospital wards etc. These are all needed because of the specific differences between male and female biology.

  5. By replacing the category of sex which is based on real scientific fact with gender identity (a feeling in someone's head) all of these sex based accommodations become nul and void. Any man can access areas reserved for women and women are therefore back in the position they were in the 19th century of being unable to participate fully in public life.

Just in case this goes onto a second page. Brilliant post Tartle

nooka · 31/07/2017 19:09

Isn't it just about expanding reproductive labour to reproductive, domestic and sexual labour? It's still about men (as a class) using women (as a class) for their own benefit and without care that in doing so women are disadvantaged in multiple ways.

Ereshkigal · 31/07/2017 19:11

Yes I agree with Nooka.

SaintFrancis · 31/07/2017 19:11

Yes, it is a very clear and concise post.

Bluntness100 · 31/07/2017 19:11

It will likely be useful to have one thread in chat and one here. The one in chat already seems full of those who shout transphobe and run, or who claim to hide trans threads but always manage to see them long enough to post that they hide them

Neither thread mentioned in their title it was about transgender issues they both just stated mumsnet was on BBC news, hence why people who hide the trans threads clicked on them.

Ereshkigal · 31/07/2017 19:12

That's pretty much exactly how I see it. Thanks for articulating it so well.

Bluntness100 · 31/07/2017 19:12

Apologies yours does, rhe first didn't,

Ereshkigal · 31/07/2017 19:13

Bluntness, this thread has "gender identity law" in the title. Unless the thread name has been changed?

Ereshkigal · 31/07/2017 19:14

Cross post

QuentinSummers · 31/07/2017 19:14

Please can we ignore the derail.

I'm another who's a bit worried by the article. I feel like publishing users names is an attempt to silence us by discouraging posting. Maybe I'm paranoid

SaintFrancis · 31/07/2017 19:16

It does make me paranoid, especially as various feminist posters have got MNHQ to remove all their posts in the past.

AssassinatedBeauty · 31/07/2017 19:17

I know what you mean about user names. They could have written it without using them and it wouldn't have made any difference.

Ereshkigal · 31/07/2017 19:18

It's a bit Daily Mail.

Elendon · 31/07/2017 19:31

I'm not scared about posting here.

It's about getting the information out there.

This is a real and vital discussion. And our voices need to be heard and not dismissed.

Datun · 31/07/2017 19:58

Also, that thread ran to 1000 posts.

Safety in numbers and all that.

FerretsAreFeminists · 31/07/2017 20:07

Neither thread mentioned in their title it was about transgender issues they both just stated mumsnet was on BBC news, hence why people who hide the trans threads clicked on them.

Um, gender identity is clearly mentioned in the title of this thread and even if it wasn't, nobody forces you to read the thread or type a reply. You can always hit the back button if you don't want to read it.

Tartle · 31/07/2017 20:22

Thank you Elendon Blush

Sorry that I got sucked into the derail though.

I suspect you are right and it's time for a name change. I hate choosing a new name- find it weirdly stressful!

VestalVirgin · 31/07/2017 20:24

I'm another who's a bit worried by the article. I feel like publishing users names is an attempt to silence us by discouraging posting. Maybe I'm paranoid

Yeah, they could be attempting to have us targeted by the violent transwacktivists.

Me, I don't much care, as I mostly use this forum for feminism, but for mothers who post potentially outing details, that's rather threatening.

PricklyBall · 31/07/2017 20:54

I was on the other thread hence name change (twirls). I am pretty paranoid about not outing myself - tend to be vague about age, location, change key details slightly. But it is a bit much to put poster's usernames in - from a news perspective "one poster wrote. .. while another wrote..." wwould work just as well. I also try to stick to the mental rule of "would I say this in front of my trans friend?" since my aim is to raise genuine concerns about loopholes in legislation. I am (not tgat critics listen) gender critical, not transphobic.

Elendon · 31/07/2017 22:07

I don't care because it's my voice and I will not be silenced.

This is a secure site.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page