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

'Society can still be protected from people pretending to be trans without expensive and intrusive medical intervention..'

Paraphrased you there Clare.

Can I ask how?

I have worked with sex offenders. I can foresee deviant individuals taking advantage. I really can.

TBH I think the less we talk about it the better - it has simply become the latest cause and the danger is that it will swing too far one way and our children will be subjected to influences that could mar their lives at a sensitive time.

Let it lie - let folk live as they wish, with respect for others. That is what we should be teaching our children.

Gender reassignment protection or gender identity protection, surely just means not discriminating against someone in terms of jobs, health care and housing?

Like all the other protections.

I do wonder if, when the documentation was first written, they hadn't realised a) quite how many extra trans there would be, in terms of your cross dressing fetishist, b) how those people are the ones who are determined to exploit the protection law to force people to view them as women and c) how all the MRI thugs would jump on the bandwagon.

Frankly, if they had taken those three things into account, they are despicable. If they haven't, they're idiots.

They really opened Pandora's box and have absolutely zero way of shutting it. They're too scared, to self interested, and too prepared to sacrifice women.

Let it lie - let folk live as they wish, with respect for others. That is what we should be teaching our children.

An excellent decision. Unfortunately, if gender identity is a protected characteristic, it won't be yours to make.

Schools and institutions are being told they must affirm a child's gender identity. Regardless of whether the parents agree.

Sorry Datun (great posts as ever) but your MRA typo has made me laugh. Those bastard MRI technicians, always jumping on the bandwagon

cheesetoast

How could gender identity be a protected characteristic?
Nobody can be discriminated against because they demand pronouns that don’t match their sex? Because they wear clothes not usually associated with their sex? Come on. Men aren’t discriminated against for being male. If they are also BME or gay men then they do face discrimination, and those are already protected in law. Women are discriminated against for being female whatever their gender identity is.

There is no way for women to have womens spaces, sports, bursaries or opportunities, to keep male predators out, and also let trans people in.
The reality is - as much as trans people dont want to hear it - that faced with a man who says he is a woman, people have no option but to either go along with it or challenge it.

Trans people need to have their own spaces. Thats the only way it can be an offence for a man who is not trans to try to use them.

YesVeryGoodVeryStrong

You know, I looked at that. And I thought that doesn't look right. Then I just stopped thinking.

Scrap the whole changing sex legally part and make Gender non conformity the protected bit - after all if you 'pass' you're not going to be discriminated against for being trans.

Still allow people to take hormones, change body, name etc if that's what helps get through the day/floats your boat.

What if you don't pass?

Then you'll be protected because you will obviously be GNC.

Could it mean they can chop and change on a whim, and we all have to comply?

So someone is a she on Friday night, but a he on the Monday morning.

Yes I think that's exactly what it will mean. And will obviously be abused as it involves no hardship or change whatsoever.

You've seen all that tumblr/Everyday Feminism bollocks about how people can be several different unknowable sparklegenders at once.

They really opened Pandora's box and have absolutely zero way of shutting it. They're too scared, to self interested, and too prepared to sacrifice women.

YY.

make Gender non conformity the protected bit
WHat does that mean though? Women who wear trousers and check shirts? Men who wear nail varnish?
Women who work in construction and male midwives?
What does being gender non conforming actually mean? Other than not conforming to social stereotypes? And why should that be a protected characteristic? And who would define what is gender conforming and what is not?!

Yes, I'm not sure about that, either. I put it down to the glass of wine.

I'd also get behind having gender identity as a protected characteristic under the EA 2010 as long as single sex service provision, where done for reasons of safety or dignity, is robustly protected and not dependant on a flimsy case by case 'proportionality' test.

I agree. It needs to be much more precisely worded. And manage expectations about making "reasonable adjustments", like disability.

I'm not sure we're going to be able to put this genie back in the bottle. We need to safeguard the legal status of females in the EA.

WHat does that mean though? Women who wear trousers and check shirts? Men who wear nail varnish?

I agree but it's no more ambiguous than what gender identity means.

Ereshkigal

What I'd really, really like is a definition of the word gender. A legal definition.

Documented, backed up, and supported by science.

If they are going to take gender as a not meaning hierarchical stereotypes, then let's have it.

Bring it on. Define it.

Indeed.

Just thinking 'aloud': after the tragic killing of Sophie Lancaster, I think one or more police forces added 'subculture abuse' to their definition of a hate crime. I know very little about how this works, but might something along the lines of 'social presentation' be a better protected characteristic than 'gender identity'? It would be easier to define. It would be classed as a hate crime to abuse or victimise someone on the grounds of their presented appearance. That could cover clothes, tattoos, hairstyle, hair colour, piercings... and many other characteristics, including any behaviours that go against expected gender norms. That would give legal protection to trans people without forcing everyone to say that they are in fact the opposite sex.

I haven't really thought that through properly, though.

differenteverytime

That sounds good to me.