DEBATE NOT HATE: WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT GENDER

[blackistheneworange]

Sorry if this is on here already but just seen it on twitter.

It's this Wednesday in Brighton which may be too short notice for me but you can book here. www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/debate-not-hate-we-need-to-talk-about-gender-tickets-38129665857/amp

No, it was in the same hotel where party conference stuff was happening

As gender identity does not require legal change of gender (or intention to legally change) there would be no age limit on this.

Right. So given that schools are now being encouraged, if not compelled, to affirm gender identity, put the scenario that I outlined happen?

They won't get a certificate, but they will still identify as the opposite sex.

Could the school and the parent
go head-to-head on the gender identity of the child, and how to treat that?

• could the scenario

They won't get a certificate, but they will still identify as the opposite sex.

Yes, or any other 'gender' they want to identify as.

Could the school and the parent go head-to-head on the gender identity of the child, and how to treat that?

Yes they could. I don't know how this would play out in the courts if a school and parents went head to head. We do need some case law around the whole topic IMO but it's an incredibly hard thing to ask of anybody to be that case.

Once something's in the EA as a protected characteristic it's illegal to discriminate against anyone because of that characteristic. The law applies to anyone/any company or org. offering goods, services, housing, employment etc. to the public and both adults and children are protected.

In addition to the requirements of the EA, the public sector (schools etc.) has to satisfy the 'public sector equality duty' which basically means they have to not only not discriminate against you but they have to acticively think about how to prevent discrimination in the way they serve the public. They have to have policies and do impact assessments, 'advance equality' and 'foster good relationships' between those who share a protected characteristic and those who don't (Maria Miller and women & equalities committee failed miserably on that and could probably be challenged in court)

Discrimination is not just treating someone less favourably, it includes harrassment which is things like offending people or causing them to feel distressed or intimidated.

That's what the activists would use.

Thanks Pencils.

In the back of my mind, I do remember reading a case in either the US or Canada, where there was an issue over custody of child who presented as trans, but the parents refuted it. I don't know if it went the distance, but I think there was discussion around it.

The other thing I wanted to ask about the EA was this.

So you can't discriminate against somebody on the basis of them being trans, as it's a protected characteristic. But could you refuse them entry into a woman's only space, say, on the basis that they are biological men? Citing the fact that you would include a transman, therefore it's not about being trans?

Well, Datun, I left The Grand feeling that if my boys grow up to be anything like your DS I’ll be a very happy mummy.

What a shame we didn’t connect Down. I’d have loved to have chatted with you too. I didn’t know which person was Lily Maynard, but it was great to chat with Helen Saxby and others. All of those I spoke to (including all three main presenters) had really great things to say about us MNers and our feminism discussions! A pat on the back to all of you for keeping these discussions alive and exposing new MNers to the issues every day.

As Datun has also** said, I was disturbed and heartened in equal measure by Stephanie’s points about children and young people and what is (or is going to be) happening in schools. Disturbed because this new “normal” is being imposed on young people but heartened that there are people like Stephanie working hard to debunk it all, help people and spread knowledge. It was all very inspiring!

I wonder all the time about what I can ever really do about any of this (and Trump, Brexit, fascism... etc., obvs!) IRL, but today has made me determined to take Julia Long’s advice to go back to see my MP in person to talk her through all of this, and to ask to see our LA and the head at my child’s school to ask about their policies and copies of any related materials they have.

The Morning Star has covered yesterday's talk. Fairly neutral.

morningstaronline.co.uk/a-d609-Gender-law-goes-under-the-lens#.WczcVH_TXYW

I've read The morning star article - clear factual reporting of what some of the key issues are. I'm impressed tbh.

Datun - So you can't discriminate against somebody on the basis of them being trans, as it's a protected characteristic. But could you refuse them entry into a woman's only space, say, on the basis that they are biological men? Citing the fact that you would include a transman, therefore it's not about being trans?

At the moment you can exclude transwomen (with a GRC or the intention to get one) from female only services if you can show it's a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'. Orgs are supposed to decide this on a case-by-case basis and be able to objectively justify it. here's the explanatory note for the relevant paragraph (Schedule 3, part 7, para 28.).

The Trans Equality Report recommends getting rid of this exception for any transwoman who has a GRC (para 132). The report also recommends changes to the GRA so that to get a GRC you basically just need to sign a form and send off the fee (para. 45). These are the changes that are being consulted on this autumn. This will be a govt. bill, not a private member's bill. As such, it's far more likely to become law than Miller's gender identity bill of last year.

So joining the dots, if both of these recommendations were passed into law, women's services would be powerless to exclude any male with £140 and the ability to sign his name.

The legislation is sex-neutral. It refers to single-sex services and excluding transexual people. There's nothing specific in there to guide on whether it would be currently legal to include transmen but not transwomen in female only services. The legislation was written at a time when there weren't many transmen at all and before the activism really got going. I doubt that specific scenario ever occurred to anybody.

This is the sort of thing that case law determines. A court could decide it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim to have a group/service/space for people with female sexed bodies and that this could legitimately include transmen but exclude transwomen. Or they could decide that by including transmen it's not a single sex service at all and we have to let all men in.

Transwomen without a GRC and not intending or in the process of getting one are currently not protected and can be excluded from women only services, along with any non-binary, genderqueer etc. men who temporarily feel a bit feminine. The Trans Equality Report recommends changing the protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment' to 'gender identity' which would make it harder to exclude all of the above (paras 17-20). This was the basis of Miller's bill last year that ran out of time. The exact wording of that bill was never published. It'll be back, I have no doubt, and will be based on these recommendations.

The added snags are:

• There's provision in the GRA that makes it illegal to disclose that someone is trans if you've obtained that knowledge in a professional capacity.

• It would probably count as discrimination (harrassment) under the EA to ask someone if they have a GRC or intend getting one. In fact there's a whole nother section in that bloody report that refers to that specifically, but I don't have the ref to hand.

So the vast majority of people who want to keep their job/not be taken to court, especially in the public sector and any third sector org. reliant on funding from the public sector (many! most of the orgs now providing vital services), daren't question anyone anyway.

The criminal justice system still gets to see and make decisions based on proper documents but everyone else is going out on a limb if they want to challenge this.

Tl;dr -

• we need case law
• we need to heavily plug sex as a protected characteristic under EA
• any change in law that's proposed should not be looked at in isolation. EA and GRA interact and between them there are numerous gotchas and ways women can be totally fucked over.

Women Analysing Policy On Women blog is a great source on this.

I was there! @datun someone has told me which one you are although you won’t have noticed me as I didn’t answer a question. I was sitting close to the bloke who was filming on the opposite side to you.
It was bloody fantastic. Although on the relative anonymity of mumsnet can I have a collective cringe with you at VA’s horribly embarrassing moment? I know it could have been a lot worse but the sharp intakes of breath were deafening!

Datun
In the back of my mind, I do remember reading a case in either the US or Canada, where there was an issue over custody of child who presented as trans, but the parents refuted it. I don't know if it went the distance, but I think there was discussion around it.

There was a similar case in the UK last year, with social services threatening to take a child into care.
www.itv.com/news/2016-10-24/parents-and-social-services-clash-over-future-of-transgender-teen/

It's worrying that the authorities can take over like this when parents are just trying to do what's best for their children.

pencils

Thanks for that. It looks like women's hands are being tied, no matter what. And culturally things have leapt ahead of the law anyway.

People much cleverer than me have nailed it though and will drill down into the details, thank God for them.

I will have a read of your links, so I have it firmly in my head. Thank you for that.

Hi Adalind. Next time I go to a meeting, I am going to wear a badge saying Mumnet Massive. We can't keep getting these opportunities to meet in real life slip through our fingers!

Hello. I am a trans woman.

There are not many of us with GRCs. Why would anyone want one? I wanted it because I live permanently as a woman, my driving licence and passport indicate I am female, I have worked for years expressing myself female, I would never force myself on lesbians but I have actually had a relationship with a woman who identifies as lesbian.

So, why would I live as a woman? Because I could not bear the prescription for masculinity enforced by society. I am "feminine". Transition enabled me to begin to accept my body as beautiful, my personality as beautiful rather than weak, sick, perverted, disgusting, ridiculous and deluded.

I meet women who are not "feminine" in this way: a wide variety of women repressed by gender norms, who would never consider transition. The gender norms are the problem, affecting trans folk and a wide spectrum of other people.

My own solution, which the legal changes encourage, is to make this a much less big deal. If a boy goes to school in a dress, or a girl wants to be known by a male name, let them, without the school needing to say the child is trans. People are people. If little girls want astronaut or dinosaur t-shirts, why not?

The real problem is the conservative enforcement of gender norms. That is why I transitioned. I would not have transitioned if I could be myself as a man.

As society is, people transition. We will continue to do so while the gender norms exist. We are traumatised by the experience of trying to fit them. Transition is liberation. We experience events like that one at Brighton as repressive, trying to shut us out of the only way of being ourselves which society tolerates, just as the extreme conservatives would. Ideally we would not need to transition but we are a symptom and not a cause of the problem, which is the gender norms. If we could be tolerated as a temporary anomaly we would be allies with the radical feminists against the status quo.

It is tragic that feminists and trans people are combating each other when the real problem is the gender norms. I condemn hitting a woman in the face.

I go into women's toilets. I queue patiently, use a cubicle quietly, wash my hands and go. I like to think I am not a huge problem. You might not want me there but am I really worth all this trouble? I hope, if I needed it, a rape crisis centre or refuge could find some space for me. I hope never to need it.

How can children be able to express cross-gender behaviour in exploration and play without it being such a big deal?

Hi @ClareFlourish I think we are on the same side here.
I don't have much time to reply to your whole post but I think you might be pleasantly surprised at how much you have in common with radical feminism (which is totally accepting of transwomen, in my opinion)

Hello Clare. Thank you for your post, I agree with what you say and am almost certain that most rational people feel as you do about gender and kids. As you say here -

“If a boy goes to school in a dress, or a girl wants to be known by a male name, let them, without the school needing to say the child is trans”

Well, exactly. The trouble is that there are aggressive moves to push “transing” (puberty blockers, then surgery etc.) on young people who display what are perfectly natural set of behaviours in what is essentially being a bit different^ from how one is supposed to be. There is another thread here at the moment with links to materials that Mermaids and GIRES are putting into schools. It is terrifying to think that children and young people are being taught that their body is wrong instead of being given the tools,^ resilience and confidence to express themselves as they see fit.

When you say -

“I would not have transitioned if I could be myself as a man”

I feel terribly sad that you feel so strongly that you can’t be who you are without changing who you are, and I hope that you have now found affirmation from those around you and happiness in your life. I firmly believe, though, that decisions such a the ones you have made should be made in adulthood rather than as a child or adolescent.

Ah. Italic text fail. Sorry.

Its sad that MTT don't feel that they can wear whatever they like and still think of themselves as men. But I don't see why women have to be the ones that solve the problem? Why does the definition of female, woman and girl change to accommodate these men? Does the need for women only facilities disappear because such men exist? Why does the comfort of MTT override the comfort and safety of women and girls?

Hi clare
I just wanted to ask if you are happy with the law as it stands on GR?
Cause if you are, I wondered why you feel women meeting to talk about the change in that law is “repressive”?

@datun - is this the case you were thinking of? Mother was bringing son up as a trans-girl, father and others thought she was imposing her own ideas on the child, who is now living with his father as a boy again? I have a feeling Mermaids were involved in advising the mother, and were eventually banned from participating in the case.

www.communitycare.co.uk/2016/10/27/judge-calls-review-social-work-response-boy-lived-girl/

There are lots of other press reports if you google (some more biased than others...), and the full judgement is here: www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2016/2430.html

Yes quite @BigDeskBob

My brother is a feminine seeming, very much visibly “out” gay man. He’s lived with verbal abuse and prejudice - predominantly from other men, of course - throughout his life and has recently said (in relation to me discussing these issues with him) that he doubts it would be any better for him if he had happened to feel the need to trans. People who are bigoted and abusive to people who deviate from “normal” will abuse any and all who threaten their world view. He holds his head high and lives his life as he sees fit without ever asking anything more than acceptance of anyone. Asking women to move over and make way is not any part of a viable solution.

ClareFlourish

It's incredibly sad and damaging that you couldn't express yourself as a non-masculine man, without transitioning.

And it's fantastic that you recognise the restrictions of gender roles as the root cause.

Both the paragraphs above align perfectly with radical feminism.

Where it parts ways is saying that in order to express yourself in the way you want, you have to assert that you are the opposite sex.

I realise that this was the only way for you to do it, though.

But it doesn't stop the profound disagreement with it.

All it does is reinforce gender roles, instead of deconstructing them.

Historically this is far more damaging to women that is to men. The roles for all women are detrimental and lead to subordination, whereas for men, they lead to domination. Although, I do understand that, in your case, the masculinity expected of you, was detrimental. Indeed, toxic masculinity is detrimental to all men.

Gender roles are damaging for everyone, but are worse for women.

Radical feminists would be delighted if men started to discard their expected roles and allowed their 'femininity' to flourish.

So although I understand why you need to identify as the opposite sex in order to do this, I don't understand why discussion about it it's not viewed as positive. Unless yours is a minority view.

I see a lot of the vitriol and determination to shut down debate being reinforced by autogynephilic men. I can readily understand how exposing this side of it is very threatening to them. And they find allies everywhere, there is a particular kind of resentment reserved for women amongst this cohort.

So, there are definitely areas of agreement from what you say. But unfortunately, any compromise that may originally have been possible, has now been shot to bits with the advent of violent, sexually motivated men appropriating your issue.

And yes @BeyondNoone , it seems that from what @ClareFlourish is saying that she feels that perhaps the laws should stay as they are...?

exexpat

No it wasn't that one. Although I did follow that at the time. Thankfully the judge was very sensible. He was also the foremost expert on trans law. So he knew what he was talking about. (Mermaids calling him ignorant just made them look silly and exposed their real agenda).

The case I was thinking of happened in America. If fact I think there were two.

I haven't searched again online, because I have 'google fatigue' at the moment over this issue.

TheWeeWitch

I believe so. Whilst I have every sympathy, it becomes meaningless, as soon as the rights and safety of women and girls are threatened.

I can sympathise, feel compassion, and understand how gender is making this happen.

But I will never agree to the definition of women changing to include men as a solution.