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:
Daffodil397 · 15/02/2018 22:59

I haven’t read the whole thread sorry.
Just wanted to say that I am in support of this idea of a cross party campaign.
I am shocked at the guidance being rolled out to schools in Scotland.
When my daughter’s old enough I would like there to be another option other than refusing permission for any overnight school trip because I don’t want her to share a room with another young person with the opposite sex body parts.
Very alarmed at how the concerns of women and girls around the proposed changes to legislation are being ignored.
I will keep an eye on mumsnet and seek to spread awareness with others about this.
Thanks mumsnet for making me aware of this.

GuardianLions · 15/02/2018 23:01

I think the 'what about the children' aspect is extremely important..

But here's the thing.

Self-ID does not mean medical transition. It will confuse things because people will think - 'I'd rather the kids self-ID than get their bits cut off' iyswim.

So it needs to be consistent.

StinkPickle · 15/02/2018 23:03

Just FYI I donated to the crowd funder and I’m Tory. This is a cross party issue. I don’t hate you because you’re a socialist so don’t hate me because I’m not. We are both feminists first and foremost.

GuardianLions · 15/02/2018 23:06

Perhaps the 'what about the children' needs to be connected to freedom of speech?

We need research into the harms of puberty-blockers, cross-sex hormones, 'affirmation' approach, detransitioning, contagion, without being sabotaged, harassed, intimidated.

TheGoalIsToStayOutOfTheHole · 15/02/2018 23:08

I doubt May would do it either, bit it may be worth asking. As soon as one party topples, they all will I think. Once they realise it is a sure vote loser to back self ID, I think Corbyn thinks people will still vote regardless. I know I won't.

RoderickRules · 15/02/2018 23:26

I think the 'what about the children' aspect is extremely important

How about pushing for ‘nothing until 16’?
Keep it simple.
It seems so obvious to me.
Consent is 16.
Protect the children until this has been properly researched and evidenced.

Maybe I’m missing something?

OlennasWimple · 15/02/2018 23:26

May genuinely probably doesn't have time to do it, unfortunately. Amber Rudd might be a better bet

Maria McLoughlin won't be able to do much media until the trial is concluded - that would be the hanging point for interviews etc with her, once it is concluded in a couple of months

GuardianLions · 15/02/2018 23:35

Yes Roderick I agree

I was talking more about a clear message that is simple and easy to grasp.

If you say 'no self I.D' it sort of contradicts 'no medical intervention' in people minds and will turn them off.

Patodp · 16/02/2018 07:10

miriamis wrote:
a) actively support the "right wing press" who cover this even if it makes you feel sick
b) keep talking to people in RL
c) keep the language plain and simple and not talk about class analysis and the like
d) keep writing to MPs of all sides and reminding them it will be a game changer in terms of voting for many people. Keep linking to critical discussions. The vote they are trying to attract is the least likely to actually vote.
e) won't somebody think of the children stance (it's sincere)
f) keep stressing that the "third", in terms of sex, space is the kindest option for all who just want to live life in peace and are not looking for confrontation and that self-ID will lead to more upset and humiliation than the third space (disability space being ring-fenced from all of this)

I would add:
f) Write complaints to the BBC, the Guardian, the independent, all these promoters of trans dogma and ideology.
Whenever you read yet another article or watch a broadcast, or listen to an interview focusing on trans issues, that features only a trans person promoting the ideology while giving no air/print space at all for womens concerns, Use your Pen. Complain about bias. Openly complain on social media. Shout about it.

JJ maybe you could post an update to your followers titled "how to get active, what you can do about the creeping in of self-ID"

Patodp · 16/02/2018 07:30

I think surveying and awareness raising would be better than a petition.
38 degrees would take anything against self-ID down, as they already have. Fair play for women have tried this.

Could mumsnet put up a survey? Could they open it to only users who have already registered and people who have registered that day to fill it out don't get counted? To prevent trolls.

The aim of the survey should be to prove how unpopular self-ID is, raise awareness covering all concerns like puberty blockers, dealing with school trips, religious angles ie Muslims nor being able to use the ladies if a man is in there, everything we discuss on here, which will be sent to the government not just Westminster but Eng Ire Scot and Welsh gvts. Ask those who partake to fill out the Scottish consultancy if they haven't already.

It'll need to be done soon so the Scottish gvt are made aware before the end of the conultancy.

The Scottish survey was unbelievably biased and didn't cover any issues that actually effect non trans people.

Raising awareness is crucial right now because it's creeping in and most people are clueless of the implications.

If mumsnet can't help, someone will have to set up a survey monkey and post links on here and it be shared on social media all over the place, but how would you prevent that being trolled? Anyone clever about?

GuardianLions · 16/02/2018 07:35

I've been thinking more about the children aspect and I don't know if it fits within a push for the right to choose sex segregation.

The problems about the kids I see are:

  1. Inaccurate suicide statistics are being unethically used by campaigners in such a way that can cause social contagion in young people and scaremonger parents and dysphoric children to push for a medical solution to a psychological disorder.
  2. Medical professionals are unethically prescribing powerful anti-cancer drugs to healthy children, which can cause sterility, reduce IQ and other irreversible side-effects, without proper research into whether this is an appropriate or proportional long-term solution to this psychological condition, at the behest of parental pressure.
  3. Schools and services for children and young people are being guided and pressured to, unethically and without parental consent, identify children who do not conform to sex stereotypes or to accept without question children who claim to be the opposite sex, and to change their service provision, including indoctrinating all other service users, to affirm this fiction.

Of those three, I think only #3 fits into the right to choose sex segregation - ie having the right to send our children to schools and use services without this 'gaslighting' policy.

1 & 2 are more about lobbying for ethical standards, perhaps seeking union support. But I think they need their own, separate campaign otherwise coming from all these different angles in the same campaign, the common thread would be 'anti-trans' - which no one would get behind, rather than a 'pro rights", 'pro kids' or 'pro ethical standards' which people would get behind, when the message is consistent and clear.

MsBeaujangles · 16/02/2018 07:54

I think the focus on children should be about ensuring that they are not limited by acceptance of /promotion of stereotypes. I think the issue of consent (as in informed consent and how it cannot be achieved at such a young age) could also, possibly, be effective. I think any further discussion about treatment protocols could be counterproductive. The argument about who is best placed to make medical decisions, medics who are bound by ethics panels and professional requirements or people with an ideology. This argument can be levelled at us and TRAs and it could serve to undermine our other key points.

MsBeaujangles · 16/02/2018 07:58

The simplest way to communicate our stance is that we want to be able to continue to be able to be recognised as a group based on our biology.
Sometimes, not always, that is important, and we want to preserve this right.

RoderickRules · 16/02/2018 08:25

Could we jointly pen a letter here to give to our GP/hospitals etc.
One for schools?
Clubs, such as Scouts/Guides.
Places of worship nearby.
One for local shops such as Topshop, Primark who are accepting the self ID.

I can’t think of anything better than a survey, but I do know that surveys aren’t very effective/low response rate.

Could do something for women’s day?
The bullet point (as was mentioned upthread, soundbytes for the campaign) thunderclap?

What self ID might mean for me?
Then bullet points.
Something about changing rooms, prisons, schools, healthcare.
Link to the consultation.

LangCleg · 16/02/2018 08:56

How about pushing for ‘nothing until 16’?

We couldn't do that because we have the well-established legal framework of Gillick competence/Fraser guidelines.

The thing is, these work well with contested treatments for minors. But the TRA propaganda is so ubiquitous that I worry treatments that should be contested aren't being.

The case in which the judge ordered the (possibly Munchausens) mother to have no contact with Mermaids only found its way into the family court because the father wanted visitation access to his son, for example.

If parents and teachers are all browbeaten into believing it's trans them or they'll kill themselves, there won't be any contested treatments for the courts to apply Fraser guidelines one way or the other.

TallulahWaitingInTheRain · 16/02/2018 09:11

I worry treatments that should be contested aren't being

An important aspect of competence to consent to treatment is that consent should be informed

The problem with the affirmative approach is that it isn't conducive to proper information. It's also arguable that when it comes to matters of future sexual function and fertility, a minor child cannot be adequately informed

LangCleg · 16/02/2018 09:18

TallulahWaitingInTheRain - yes, exactly. And how do we get to a place where those in safeguarding positions are contesting, say, treatment decisions based on affirmation? If the parents and teachers and social workers are all brainwashed by TRA propaganda or afraid to go against it, who will do the contesting?

GuardianLions · 16/02/2018 09:18

Principles of the right to choose same-sex segregation:

  1. Same sex-segregation means all participants are the same sex.
  1. The inclusion of just one member of the opposite sex, means that for the duration of their participation, same-sex segregation ceases and instead becomes unisex inclusion.
  1. Campaigning for the right to choose same-sex segregation is not a campaign to end unisex inclusion for those who prefer and choose it.
  1. Where unisex inclusion exists, but numbers of willing participants are low, those who choose and prefer same-segregation must not be forced into unisex inclusion.
TheXXFactor · 16/02/2018 09:27

Could we jointly pen a letter here to give to our GP/hospitals etc

Sorry, as an HCP, I have to say that's a complete waste of time. It's the medical establishment - the GMC and the Royal Colleges - pushing the trans agenda. The GMC and chair of the Royal College of GPs are in bed with Stonewall and are pushing the idea that it's "conversion therapy" to counsel kids who want hormones/PB that they might grow out of it. It is bizarre and completely at odds with the normal ethical imperative to make a patient aware of all alternatives to a proposed treatment.

The law is also forcing doctors to comply - I have posted before about how it is now a criminal offence to disclose a trans person's biological sex without permission for medical reasons.

While the GMC and law take this line, doctors have no choice but to comply or lose their careers. If you get struck off by the GMC, you cannot work. It's asking a hell of a lot for a doctor to sacrifice their entire professional and financial future, and that of their kids, to take a stance against trans-ing teenagers.

Destinysdaughter · 16/02/2018 09:27

I like the idea of a statement/letter we can send out to pp/organisations as suggested up thread. There are some good examples here in this thread about pp who have written to their MP

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3166160-Has-anyone-written-to-their-MP-about-the-GRA?pg=1&order=

Destinysdaughter · 16/02/2018 09:30

TheXXFactor bloody hell, I didn't know that, that's shocking! And so unethical...Angry

TallulahWaitingInTheRain · 16/02/2018 09:32

If the parents and teachers and social workers are all brainwashed by TRA propaganda or afraid to go against it, who will do the contesting?

The difficulty here is that for many (most?) professions contesting would now be a disciplinary matter. See the Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy wrt health professionals, and the recent case of teacher Roy Wilkes who was subjected to disciplinary proceedings for questioning the affirmative approach. He won, but there's no guarantee the next apostate will.

Change needs to happen at the level of those making the rules, not those trying to implement them.

TallulahWaitingInTheRain · 16/02/2018 09:33

Cross post

averylongtimeago · 16/02/2018 10:31

The idea of writing to local clubs (scout/guides) will only work if the central organisation is targeted.
In guiding, (which is seperate from Scouting) policy is decided at national level.
Individual guider leaders have to follow the rules from hq, who are following the "they are all girls just the same" advice from Mermaids.

www.girlguiding.org.uk/making-guiding-happen/running-your-unit/including-all/lgbt-members/supporting-trans-members/

From talking to other leaders, some have no idea and think it will make no difference, some are worried but don't know how to speak out and a few are all in favour. GG quietly changed the wording about 18 months ago from "single sex" to "single gender" organisation.

GuardianLions · 16/02/2018 10:32

Why is the right to choose same-sex segregation important?

1) Sports.
For fair competition, to encourage participation and for the safety of participants in contact sports.

2) Facilities, services & accommodation
For privacy, safety and dignity where participants are vulnerable, in states of undress, tending to matters of puberty, menstruation, pregnancy, miscarriage, birth, breastfeeding, other matters of primary and secondary sex function, health and of excretory organs, or where participants are vulnerable to voyeurism and sex assault.
This includes hospital wards, prisons, changing rooms, conveniences and shared accommodation.

3) Retreat and same-sex support
i) Where participants are being harassed, stalked, intimidated or threatened by a member of the opposite sex.
This includes specific services such as Rape Crisis Centres and women's refuges as well as informal places such as women's conveniences.
ii) For homosexuals to meet privately.
iii) To gather to politically organise around legitimate aims.
iv) For friendship and fellowship.

4) Learning, education and development.
Some children thrive better in single-sexed schools and recreational activities such as Girl Guides.

Swipe left for the next trending thread