Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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:
Janie143 · 16/02/2018 16:39

Perfect amendment WRT sex Vs gender GuardianLions

BoreOfWhabylon · 16/02/2018 16:40

Dr Nicola Williams is a research scientist specialising in human biology and has held a number of senior scientific positions within the pharmaceutical industry. She is now dedicated to her full-time volunteer role as a writer and speaker on reform of the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) and its impact on women and children

Welcome to Mumsnet Nicola, I'm delighted to see you here.

mirialis · 16/02/2018 16:41

As the separate issue of children (although children must be referred to in the single sex/self-ID campaign because the idea of people's daughter's sharing facilities with men is a game changer), would MN - not just FWR - be open to a "let kids be kids" campaign, similar to their "let girls be girls" campaign, which was about preventing the sexualisation of children? Using some of the info on the gendertrender schools package - or is that still too contentious?

Valentinesfart · 16/02/2018 16:46

The government should not work with any LGBT/Trans organisation that deems exclusive same sex attraction as inherently objectionable.

I think this should be amended to include hetero and bisexuality or "the cotton ceiling" as LGBT group aren't only dictating who LGB people can fuck but who all women people can fuck now with this cotton ceiling nonsense.

For the record, it may have been said as I haven't gone through the whole thread and am scanning it, but @jenniferjames it is one thing to say "I'm not leading, don't expect that from me". but the problem is that you are, I get that you don't want it and haven't asked for it. Them's the breaks. Like it or not, your face and name are being linked. Which means you need to either step away and let someone a bit more neutral have a go or apologise and start playing nice with everyone. The "mighty Mumsnet" stuff seems pretty patronising and false when you have been pretty dismissive and rude to people.

You are concerned that the Spectator is tricking the left into falling apart but you're right now doing the same on MN with regards to self ID.

The truth is that politicians have been kissing MN's collective ass for a long time, and for good reason. We're a demographic of educated voting women. It would be terrible politics to ignore or to write off as simpering mummies who lunch.

Valentinesfart · 16/02/2018 16:49

For focus, I am not going down the medical ethics root with this one, since it confuses the anti-self-id reasoning and looks like it is just 'anti-trans'. Obviously medical ethics and transing children are hugely important issues - particularly on a parenting website

I think most people would be horrified if they realised what was happening regarding children. There are a lot of people who aren't even happy with their daughter accessing birth control or abortion without their permission. This is potentially body altering.

DoctorW · 16/02/2018 16:53

What a lovely welcome - thank you everyone!

Guardian In response to your question about the legal position on the AWS this is one of the few instances when a GRC does count. The AWS is a positive discrimination measure in Equality Law specifically for the protected characteristic of SEX for females. You can be in this protected characteristic by virtue of birth OR by getting a GRC. So this is why a transwomen with a GRC (legally female) is allowed on the AWS but a transwomen without a GRC (legally male) is not.

However, in most other aspects of equality law concerned with single-sex spaces or activities there is an exemption to exclude someone based on them coming under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. So even if someone changes legal sex with a GRC they still fall under the category of gender reassignment and so can be excluded. Its quite a subtle detail but makes all the difference.

I have made a factsheet summarising the single-sex exemptions that people might find useful as a reference:
fairplayforwomen.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/EA2010_womensrights_-factsheet.pdf

Valentinesfart · 16/02/2018 16:54

The most useful thing MN could come up with from the crowdfunder point of view is options to spend the money, if only part of it is spent on legal fees. In the cf text it says what the rest of the money must be spent on. This may (may!) only cost £5,000... which leaves an awful lot for other projects or groups...

I'd like to see it be used as a series of court cases. Can a teenage girl take on her school regarding sports and locker rooms. I'm really keen to see the primogeniture exception challenged, it's so obvious that they give no shits about women.

DoctorW · 16/02/2018 17:06

If anyone wants to check me out I have a website now. I'm just an ordinary women who's damn angry about what's happening and I've decided it's time to be brave and put myself out there and speak up about this.

www.drnicolawilliams.com

MsMartini · 16/02/2018 17:14

DoctorW you rock, I am so pleased to see you on here.

EmyRoo · 16/02/2018 17:20

I would be really surprised if a legal challenge to self-ID on AWS only cost £5000. You are talking £300 an hour for a decent lawyer at least, and litigation eats up money.

That apart, the Fair Play for Women website is excellent- thank you, Dr Williams.

GuardianLions · 16/02/2018 17:20

Thank you Doc Flowers

It seems an utterly bizarre distinction. Why should a GRC make a male a legal female specifically for AWS? I wonder what the thinking was there Hmm

fishdogpancakes · 16/02/2018 17:28

My MP has responded. As follows;

MP has asked me to thank you for your comments on the issue of self-identifying gender for which he is grateful and will take into account and appreciates the great worry you have over this issue.

Kind Regards

So there you have it. Do we need a thread of MP replies to their constituents?

BeyondTerfyCassandra · 16/02/2018 17:30

@OrderOnline I'm just catching up with the thread and honestly honoured to be name checked - no one ever picks me! Flowers

I will gladly liaise with JJ on disability related issues, along with anyone else who wants me!! I'm already in contact with Dr Nic at FPFW :)

And now back to catching up on the thread...

BeUpStanding · 16/02/2018 17:35

You are so welcome DoctorW!

Yes to whoever suggested starting to meet up locally. I am so ready to take this off the boards and onto the streets. Would the local boards be a good place to start organising maybe?

Currently I'm peaktransing about one new person every day, just by talking to friends and colleagues.

FaithHopeCharityDesperation · 16/02/2018 17:42

So there you have it. Do we need a thread of MP replies to their constituents?

There's one already fishdog.

Hang on...

DaisyDrip · 16/02/2018 17:42

DoctorW Your website is a goldmine of information, I suspect I'm going to be reading it for a while yet. I was so engrossed earlier I almost burned dinner.

FaithHopeCharityDesperation · 16/02/2018 17:45

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3166160-Has-anyone-written-to-their-MP-about-the-GRA?msgid=75670268

@fishdogpancakes

There's not much activity on it though at the mo.

TallulahWaitingInTheRain · 16/02/2018 17:46

Hi DrW. Welcome to Mumsnet Brew

Your work is very much appreciated

PencilsInSpace · 16/02/2018 17:47

Why should a GRC make a male a legal female specifically for AWS? I wonder what the thinking was there

I think the way it works is that a GRC makes a TIM legally female for all purposes but then there are extra exceptions for single sex services, occupational requirements, single sex accommodation and sports that make it legal to exclude TIMs even with a GRC. The onus is on those using the exception to show it's a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The EA is a bit weird though. It's been kind of cobbled together from loads of older bits of equality legislation and some case law. It's tempting to see it as a kind of pick and mix: choose your protected characteristic, add a context (employment, housing, education bla bla) and identify the type of discrimination (direct, indirect, harrassment, victimisation etc.). It doesn't work like that though. E.g:

  • Marriage and civil partnership is a protected characteristic but there is no corresponding PC for single people. And it only applies in employment.
  • Age discrimination does not apply in a housing context
  • 'Reasonable adjustments' are only relevant for people with disabilities (I've seen at least one trans 'guidance' document stating that RA must be made for trans people under the EA Hmm)
Akire · 16/02/2018 17:49

Welcome DrW someone who really knows their stuff is so needed. I love the way this has envolved and what it may become.

We may not be able to stop the tide but we can make our views know and question even if it’s simply asking at every changing room “Is this single Sex” and going elsewhere if we are not comfortable. It gives us some power back, instead of all these information packs telling organisations that customers who complain just need to be educated.

fishdogpancakes · 16/02/2018 17:56

I emailed Katie Hopkins and I see she's beginning the battle

Katie Hopkins‏Verified account
@KTHopkins

Breaking. 1) if you rented a womb to have a baby, you didn’t have a baby. You bought one. 2) if you were born a man and you ‘breastfed’ a baby, you didn’t. You abused an innocent child. #babyfacts

Valentinesfart · 16/02/2018 18:02

If I was tied to KH i'd gnaw my own leg off to get away. I don't think it's helpful to have her on our side.

Valentinesfart · 16/02/2018 18:03

I feel a bit like I want to vom because I completely agree with her tweet even.

I'm sure she'd vomit too if she thought her tweet made her sound like a feminist.

DaisyDrip · 16/02/2018 18:08

People may not like KH but one thing she has we need - numbers!

conservativeuterus · 16/02/2018 18:08

People despise Katie Hopkins for various reasons, myself am indifferent, but where she is different to others is that she is not afraid of what people think of her. If more people were not so afraid of being labelled, owned their point of view, no matter how 'controversial' or 'wrong' we wouldn't be in this mess. TRAs screaming transphobe or bigot would not have the power they seemingly have right now. Free speech is incredibly important in our society, but that seems to have been lost in favour of the perpetually offended.