Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Team Smash The Patriarchy needs Mumsnet input/representation

605 replies

JenniferJames · 14/02/2018 18:13

We are hoping to have someone familiar with Mumsnet liaising with you on what the majority feeling is here and getting a list of your priorities for the outcome of GRA changes. The crowdfunder women are all Labour women, so any representations organised by us will take place within the confines of the Labour party.

However as this affects all women and is such a cross-party issue, we hope that people will lobby within their own parties, or their own factions within their own parties... and we can compare notes!

This is part of a piece on self-id from Bella Caledonia, it represents a good starting point for debate... bear in mind the debate has to end up with solutions and it's up to us to work that out together.

This is early days and we are all building this movement organically... let's see where it takes us.

Will check back and keep you posted Mighty Mumsnet.

Jennifer xx

----
CONSULTATION RESPONSES
So how do we address all of this?
Below I will outline my suggestions for consultation responses and I contend that these are all absolutely necessary if we are to protect women and girls. Not one of these suggestions threatens trans rights. Equal does not mean identical. Trans women are not female. Trans people have their rights to live as they wish, love who they wish, and have the same legal protections as everyone else. And they should have the spaces and services they need; everyone supports that.
None of this requires women and girls to lose our rights.
Our rights are only threatened because trans activists don’t want any distinction made between trans women and women. But we are not the same and pretending otherwise erases the female sex class, preventing us from addressing our sex based oppression, and what could possibly be a more heinous act of misogyny than that? Surely no-one in the Scottish government believes that women don’t suffer as a result of our female bodies.
So firstly I suggest we call on the government to establish the following principles as an underpinning to any legislation affecting women and girls:
• Females suffer exploitation, discrimination, injustice, oppression and male violence due to their reproductive sex. And as such, female bodies have a political significance that they need to be able to talk about, organise around and address as a distinct reproductive class of people.
• Females deserve equality, to participate in society, to be safe, and to have their welfare valued. The government should monitor and address females as a sex class on all of these measures, however ‘woman’ is defined in legislation.
• Trans equality should be based on trans as a characteristic, and not on erasing the female sex as a characteristic.
• Females are not to blame for the climate of male violence they live in or for the effects. Victim blaming is never acceptable, and legislation should reflect this.
• Females should be able to set their own boundaries around their own bodies; understanding that anything less is in direct contravention of the principle of consent.
• Females should not be forced to adopt trans ideology/biological essentialism/genderism. There can be no assumption that women as a group identify as the feminine gender that is coercively imposed on them to subjugate them; and women who do not subscribe to genderism and instead contend that for them a woman is simply an adult female, must be able to assert this (that’d be most of us).
• The government should not work with any LGBT/Trans organisation that deems exclusive same sex attraction as inherently objectionable.
In order to work with the above principles, the government should identify and pursue the necessary Scotland specific exemptions/amendments to the Equality Act before making any changes to the GRA.
In addition, before moving to a system of self ID the government should do the following:
• Carry out Equality Impact Assessments (EQIAs) on how the proposed changes to the GRA will potentially affect the equality, participation, safety and welfare of women and girls, understanding that trans inclusion has already had an unmeasured impact.
• Inform and consult with women on sex segregation and male bodied trans inclusion to properly gauge how to protect women and girls on the aforementioned measures. Most women don’t realise what is already happening, and a recent Panelbase poll found that women in Scotland are 3:1 against male bodied trans people having access to female only spaces.
• Draw up the necessary Scotland specific exemptions/amendments in response to these assessments and consultations, in order to ensure women and girls are protected, and secure these with the UK government before moving forward with self ID. FAILURE TO DO THIS IS ABANDONING WOMEN AND GIRLS ENTIRELY.
• Draw up guidelines on how to implement Equality Act exemptions, so businesses and providers can do so without fear of legal action.
• Be aware that the Engender led women’s organisations’ joint statement saying that these changes posed no threat to women’s equality, was released without any of these organisations consulting their members regarding the GRA beforehand, and indeed without conducting and concluding their own research on how these changes will specifically impact on women’s equality. Not only this, they have not consulted with women at all despite being asked to do so and choosing to speak for us, and nor have they carried out any other work in order to gauge how women and girls are already self-excluding/are otherwise affected. Furthermore, when approached by victims in relation to this proposed legislation, they refused to engage with their concerns. I know – I am one of them. Therefore we should call on the government to understand that these organisations cannot possibly represent women in this, and since they came to their position before carrying out the work necessary to come to said position, the government should assess any cited research/data itself, rather than rely on the interpretation of women’s organisations.
Lastly, there are a few additional suggestions for steps the government should take in relation to other parts of their proposals:
• Carry out its own research on dysphoria in young people and on desistance, not least because – as the NHS notes – studies show that most children diagnosed as transgender grow out of it, with all of the studies undertaken on this showing anywhere from a 63% to 88% desistance rate. Within this the government should properly research suicidality; follow up interviews usually halve the percentage for suicide in studies, and controls are used to filter out other factors so results can be instructive as to the causes. The study referenced in the consultation was neither followed up nor controlled. The government also needs to be clear on how transition affects mental health, including for the majority who desist, and who – due to affirmation – didn’t receive the right support when they needed it. Only then can the government assess the potential impact of reducing the age limit for a GRC.
• Unless the government wants to assert that a woman is someone who identifies with being submissive, and a man is someone who identifies with male supremacy, they should not introduce a third legal gender. It is reactionary in the extreme to uphold the idea that women and men identify as/actually are the gender imposed on them, and this should not be assigned to people as part of any legislation, and providing trans services does not necessitate this either.
• Immediately move to introduce misogyny as a hate crime. Women are being targeted for violence and abuse at unprecedented levels, just for being women. We are even becoming targets of hate for talking about the meaning of our bodies, and naming male violence. We are an oppressed and marginalised group and deserve the same protections all other such groups have.
The Scottish government consultation has been written with a very clear bias, and the fact they haven’t carried out a single EQIA regarding how these proposals could potentially impact on the equality of women and girls is simply indefensible. Surely it’s in no-one’s interests that the government moves forward with legislation without understanding how to protect the largest marginalised group in our society. So let’s make sure that happens.

OP posts:
RedToothBrush · 15/02/2018 19:57

So here's my question for people like Red. (I'm sorry but I don't have political experience.)

How does it work? If we came up with a set of proposals, like yours for instance, how do we get them be addressed?

Furthermore, at what point can ordinary women detect the critical mass of public support, to then be confident in changing the minds of politicians?

The point is the set up a central framework from everyone to work from with any type of activism that they might feel able to take.

By repetition and consistent approach you get the message across better. It makes it easier to focus certain questions and to frame OUR debate rather than play catch up or dance to TRA agenda.

We create OUR agenda and what we need to see addressed. And where we need to apply pressure on our own terms.

If its cross party it isnt about political gain, its about recognising the heart of the issue on common ground. It can used equally against public bodies and institutions to go, why aren't you upholding the law.

If we can create something than creates consensus you drag debate kicking and screaming back to that broad church rather than the extremes.

You can print it off and go to x and say, why aren't you doing this. This is what a huge number of women are concerned about.

Small activism becomes big activism. The key is broad consensus and making it reasonable and difficult to argue with.

Make the questions as difficult as possible to answer in response. Show that there is legitimacy in whats said and not scaremongering transphobia.

Women HAVE to start making the debate on THEIR terms not TRAs.

If you can get organisations like trends gender trend and a womens place to get behind it as a minimum then it starts to create an umbrella even if there is no formal leadership or grouping.

It probably needs work on but thats what MN can do, debate and form a general consensus as to principles rather than individual demands or issues in particular areas.

One of the problems we face is precisely fear of being sticking head above the parapet so more of an 'i'm spartacus' approach, at least initially is helpful.

If mps start getting the same thing, which makes a strong point about process, procedure and structural weaknesses which undermine principles around ethics, rights, democracy and inclusion it will get noticed and be given more respect, because it looks more organised and serious. Basically, go for the rational argument because the women are stereotyped as hysterical over this. Emotional examples come into it to illustrate it, but as a secondary tool rather than leading it.

Basically throw the questions back to establishments in a way that cant be ignored by doing it in a language they understand.

Destinysdaughter · 15/02/2018 20:08

Since we are brainstorming, could we produce a questionnaire and see if MNetters would be willing to fill it in, to get a wide range of views which we can then produce as evidence that women don't want this?

GuardianLions · 15/02/2018 20:08

Thanks red

I think talking about the 'right', the 'freedom' to 'choose' sex-segregation is important because it brushes aside all the women who say "I don't mind dicks in the women's changing rooms".

It doesn't matter that they don't mind.

We are fighting for the right to choose and not have that option taken away from us.

If people want unisex toilets, hospital wards, prisons, changing rooms, swimming facilities - they can push for those in addition as their choice, should they ever be hospitalised, incarcerated, etc.

They don't have the right to take away our choices.

Cismyfatarse1 · 15/02/2018 20:08

Has anyone written to Ruth Davidson? I had a helpful response from a Tory MSP who had written to the Minister and enclosed her reply. But, will Ruth see this as a vote winner? She has broad appeal in Scotland, is Leader of the Opposition and a prominent lesbian woman.

Am going to do so but she might be worth lots of people writing to, given the consultation in Scotland is still live.

GuardianLions · 15/02/2018 20:10

could we produce a questionnaire and see if MNetters would be willing to fill it in,

We might need to do it with the help of MNHQ in order that it isn't sabotaged.

Ereshkigal · 15/02/2018 20:11

We are fighting for the right to choose and not have that option taken away from us.

This point is really key.

OrderOnline · 15/02/2018 20:11

For those that are unaware, here is some context to my posts.

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/news/wheelchair-spaces-buses-must-be-priority-court-rules

GuardianLions · 15/02/2018 20:13

I am so burned up by that poor woman with a man in her psychiatric ward. Angry

Crimsonpeaked · 15/02/2018 20:13

I just wanted to add my voice to this thread to say thanks to Jennifer for starting the go fund me campaign. I stumbled onto the feminist chat section by accident when I saw the go fund me up on active threads and was curious. Since then I've been hooked! I'm on the spectrum, know very little about feminism and voted for JC in the last election because I liked him and what labour stood for at the time. However, I find self identification very worrying due to the possibility of women losing safe spaces. My daughter is sporty and so I also worry about how self id will impact on women's sport. I've read all of this thread but my brain doesn't work brilliantly so I've not understood it all. However, what I have worked out is that for us to make a real impact we need to do it together as women regardless of political affiliation. (This isn't my first post, I just name change often)

TheGoalIsToStayOutOfTheHole · 15/02/2018 20:15

Women HAVE to start making the debate on THEIR terms not TRAs.

Indeed. We need to stop replying to their bullshit and set our own terms, this is a must. Calmly repeat factual things, rather than get dragged into nonsensical arguments with people trying to convert the world to their religion. Infact, maybe ignore transactivists all together, as all they do is attack and twist words to try and make us look bad.

RedToothBrush · 15/02/2018 20:20

Guardian, thats a fair and valid point.

It also pitches well to liberals who believe in those principles and thats the audience you want to win over most. The words freedom and rights matter to them.

As a rule and on a blunt level more conservative types with no interest in feminism are going to be much more of the mindset that this genderspeak is simply overly political correct bullshit and women have certain genitalia and men have certain other genitalia.

If you frame correctly i'd say its fairly easy to cover both bases.

You need to remove emotion to get something cross party and then reapply it with examples that work for that particular audience.

OrderOnline · 15/02/2018 20:21

"91. The ideal solution, if there is one, would be to change the law so as to create an obligation on the part of non-wheelchair users, enforceable in the same way as the rule against anti-social behaviour, to move unless the driver reasonably considers that they have a sufficient reason not to do so.”

The court order is for someone in my position, to have priority. As I understand it, policy makers currently state that a trans identified male has more rights than me and I have to move.

RedToothBrush · 15/02/2018 20:23

( I use the words liberal and conservative in the context of authoritarian / liberal divide rather than political party line in case anyone is in any doubt. Socialists can be liberal or conservative)'

GuardianLions · 15/02/2018 20:24

And the right to choose also works in other ways

The right to choose a school for our child that teaches and affirms only fact-based biology and sex education.

fishdogpancakes · 15/02/2018 20:26

Yes I think there is a real fire in the belly uniting us when it comes to freedom of choice and speech.

Women must legally keep the freedom to speak and stay safe (which often means sex segregation). TRA's would silence us and GRA takes our safety.

mirialis · 15/02/2018 20:28

He didn't care for much else other than children though (I think the fear of NHS compensation claims was an issue), the disabled, lesbian or women's issues were not his thing

Sorry, been out so aware the conversation is moving on but just wanted to say that I do think this is part of the route we may have to take though - so when I linked to that poor transwoman (i.e. a male who was very confrontational) he was implying it was offensive he was being told to use the disabled toilets. I, like you, think this is not right for your sake more than his and perhaps the most effective way to get this through to some people (I initially posted in response to the idea you have to adjust our pitch according to who the audience is) is to say it's really awkward and painful for everyone concerned and I don't want disabled children nor any child in fact to face confrontation and anger and that in the "third space" - and by third space I mean purely in terms of sex-secgreated space - is the best way to deal with that rather than self-ID.

Disability access space should always be ring-fenced outside of sex segregation.

I can see the last post above mine is saying we have to do this on our terms and I want to go back and read everything when I get a chance before posting again, but I think we probably do have to keep stressing that the third unisex space is in the interests of transpeople and everyone else, so that it's not horrible and awkward and humiliating for everyone concerned etc. if we want those who don't want to appear to be "transphobic" to get on board.

GuardianLions · 15/02/2018 20:30

I am not interested in fighting for a 4th space for transgendered people.

They can fight for their own 4th space.

Ereshkigal · 15/02/2018 20:30

This is the thread of Canadian examples Canada Self ID: evidence for and against
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3157709-Canada-Self-ID-evidence-for-and-against

GuardianLions · 15/02/2018 20:31

Thanks E

FaithHopeCharityDesperation · 15/02/2018 20:31

Women HAVE to start making the debate on THEIR terms not TRAs.

Yes!

Indeed. We need to stop replying to their bullshit and set our own terms, this is a must. Calmly repeat factual things, rather than get dragged into nonsensical arguments with people trying to convert the world to their religion.

Yes! Yes!

Infact, maybe ignore transactivists all together, as all they do is attack and twist words to try and make us look bad.

Yes! Yes! Yes!

Absolutely agree with these points.

fishdogpancakes · 15/02/2018 20:34

I also think some of the language needs simplifying to include more who would turn away at vast tracts of feminist speech.

Winston Churchill was a master at using words universally understood in powerful ways.

JenniferJames · 15/02/2018 20:34

'Since we are brainstorming, could we produce a questionnaire and see if MNetters would be willing to fill it in, to get a wide range of views which we can then produce as evidence that women don't want this?'

Let me know if you want me to do a survey monkey out to donors, I think there's about 1,200. I did one earlier in our campaign, and it got 500 responses I can put the link on an update and publish results following day.

OP posts:
GuardianLions · 15/02/2018 20:35

Agreed

We need to move away from the mind-bending weirdness that is the current debate.

GuardianLions · 15/02/2018 20:37

JJ - I think it would be far easier for you to control a survey of donors..

fishdogpancakes · 15/02/2018 20:39

I want the Right to say NO and the Freedom to say Yes if I chose without threat or coercion.

I want women to be recognised as equal citizens but to have the physical differences between Woman and Man respected for safety and fairness in work, life and recreation.