Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
fishdogpancakes · 16/02/2018 18:15

KH is exactly who we need.

Huge following of lovers and haters and whatever you think she is one brave woman who's never afraid to stand up and say what she thinks.

BeyondTerfyCassandra · 16/02/2018 18:17

Oh hey DoctorW - when I posted I hadn't seen you were here! Grin

fishdogpancakes · 16/02/2018 18:31

pbs.twimg.com/media/DVAdw4MVoAEsT6H.jpg:large

DoctorW · 16/02/2018 18:33

GuardianLions
The problem we have here is that the GRA2004 (the law that sets out how to legally change gender through a GRC) and the Equality Act 2010 (anti-discrimination laws) make no reference to each other.

So although the GRA2004 means someone can become the opposite sex FOR ALL PURPOSES. It is the EA2010 that has legal exemptions to exclude based on gender reassignment.

So in the case of a male they can be legally discriminated against based on their sex and excluded from a female-only space. If that male gets a GRC and is then legally female they can't be excluded based on their sex (they are female now) but they CAN be legally discriminated against because they have undergone gender reassignment and excluded from the female-only space for that reason.

The principle of excluding people because they are trans existed way before the Equality Act became law. (For example, the idea that someone can be excluded from a specific occupation because they are trans was established in anti-discrimination employment law). In 2010 lots of different equality laws were amalgamated and these exemptions got carried through into the new law (thank goodness). However, the new bits added into the Equality Act like All women shortlists did not have the trans exemptions added. So I don't think the trans exemptions were missed off the AWS for a specific reason - its more about the political atmosphere at the time a bit of law was written. We have the trans exemptions because 20 years ago public opinion agreed it was necessary to have them because biological sex mattered to people back then. Nowadays gender identity appears to trump biological sex - which is why businesses are scared to apply the exemptions. Our mission should be to swing the pendulum of public opinion back towards common sense so that biological sex is given priority when it matters. The laws are all there ready to be dusted off and used - they are just laying dormant out of lack of use. Once the general public become aware of this - and start moaning loudly about it - business will start applying the exemptions once more.

So in my opinion its not law changes we need to push for - it all going to be about changing public opinion. If all women said to Topshop we ain't buying your clothes unless we can try them on in fitting rooms for biological females only they would soon invoke the laws to exclude trans. At the moment the trans lobby is shouting the loudest and threatening to boycott them. We need to change that so the loudest voices Topshop hears are womens.

DoctorW · 16/02/2018 18:42

Understanding the history of the laws we have and the thinking at the time has helped me really understand why we have the laws we do now. You can see how things evolved over time away from what was intended at the time. I have written a potted history of both the GRA2004 and the equality laws. If you read through them it'll really help you understand the context.

fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-rights-get-part-1-equality-law/

fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-rights-get-part-2-changing-legal-sex-status/

FarFrom · 16/02/2018 18:42

Just want to highlight that not everyone on mn is supportive of the views put here about trans women and trans men.

There are many who post occasionally or not at all on these threads but find them depressingly harsh and hard to those already struggling to find a place in society where they feel they can fit. (And even to anyone who puts across a different opinion).

I am not against freedom of speech and this is that in action. But please don’t think this is the voice of mn.

DaisyDrip · 16/02/2018 18:44

"Our lives start to end the day we silence ourselves about things which are really important."

The ending of an incredibly powerful and well written letter. Thank you for sharing fishdogpancakes

OlennasWimple · 16/02/2018 18:45

DoctorW - it's so great to have you on here! And thank you for the work you are doing Flowers

LangCleg · 16/02/2018 19:04

DoctorW - the original (disastrous) Maria Miller report not only recommended amending the GRA to self-ID but also amending EA2010:

22. We recommend that the Equality Act be amended so that the occupational requirements provision and / or the single-sex / separate services provision shall not apply in relation to discrimination against a person whose acquired gender has been recognised under the Gender Recognition Act 2004. (Paragraph 132)

Amber Rudd stated on the Marr Show that this would not happen and several Conservative MPs have confirmed in writing to constitutents (including mine).

Do you think Labour intend on amending EA2010?

And which do you think the priority should be, if any? Opposing amendments to the GRA or EA2010?

shedalight · 16/02/2018 19:06

Fantastic positive thread. GuardianLions - I really liked your pdf.
I'm another one who reckons we must include children as a key issue.

The lack of safeguarding of vulnerable children and the deliberate undermining of safeguarding principles by activists is a massive concern. Somehow this needs exposing.

BeyondTerfyCassandra · 16/02/2018 19:29

You'd think the transing of pre pubescent children would be covered by let toys be toys/let clothes be clothes campaigns already. Sadly some people aren't putting two and two together there though... Hmm

TallulahWaitingInTheRain · 16/02/2018 19:41

Good document GuardianLions. It seems pretty comprehensive to me, children aside Smile

I do agree with pps that the distinction between gender and sex needs to be clarified. Otherwise it might just as well be taken as an argument for spaces for women and TIMs but no men.

FarFrom · 16/02/2018 19:42

Those talking about children. It’s really very hard. We give antidepressants and anti anxiety and anti psychotic medication to children too. It’s about trying to help them as much as possible to feel they can live with themselves.

Valentinesfart · 16/02/2018 20:06

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

She has numbers but for every follower she has, another person will wonder if they're wrong for being on the same side as her.

Normal conservative, normal rent a gob yeah fine. She's a lunatic.

Valentinesfart · 16/02/2018 20:07

Also it gives those who call us bigots fuel because if you agree with KH you're clearly evil Hmm

Valentinesfart · 16/02/2018 20:09

Free speech is incredibly important in our society, but that seems to have been lost in favour of the perpetually offended.

I am totally for free speech, 100% I think it's useful in weeding out the crazies. KH's "final solution" comments and what else did she call refugees, cockroaches? She is a bigot. That's why I hate being called one, that's what bigotry looks like. It's not knowing the definition of words.

Valentinesfart · 16/02/2018 20:13

I am not against freedom of speech and this is that in action. But please don’t think this is the voice of mn.

No, and I'm sure that some people don't feel comfortable voicing the opinion as some of us can be quite vocal. I do believe the majority of people who understand the issue fully on MN tend to be on this side. That's not a jibe, I've just noticed that people who are more on the Trans side tend to think "transexual" not transgender. I'd feel bad but the rest of the liberal internet is totally pro transactivism.

PencilsInSpace · 16/02/2018 20:15

The more the general public wake up to what's going on the more people will express opinions we agree with. Statistically this will include loads of people we disagree with on pretty much everything else and also some arseholes.

We might get to the point where only the transactivists are plugging this shit and everybody else disagrees with them, from EDL to the greens. And we'll still get 'Ooooh you agreed with a tory. You're bad.'

In other news, water is wet and the sky is blue.

DaisyDrip · 16/02/2018 20:15

She's a lunatic No, she isn't a lunatic but she is very outspoken. Some subjects need a bit if tact and she doesn't often show that. I can't say I agree with her on many things but if she can get the real message out about the GRA I for one would hug her. As has been stated here, many people particularly woman don't realise what the GRA would mean for them and their children. If Katie can show them the truth I would support that. Hell, at this point I could support almost anyone who could get the word out and allow scales to fall from eyes.

Valentinesfart · 16/02/2018 20:19

She's a lunatic No, she isn't a lunatic but she is very outspoken.

Saying we need to commit genocide against Muslims means that yes, she is a dangerous lunatic.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/23/manchester-attack-police-investigate-katie-hopkins-final-solution-tweet

www.independent.co.uk/voices/katie-hopkins-when-is-enough-enough-10186490.html

DaisyDrip · 16/02/2018 20:22

Valentinesfart We shall have to agree to disagree Flowers

I don't agree with her views on many things, the ones you highlighted included.

fishdogpancakes · 16/02/2018 20:29

No one person can head this matter and be universally loved. We all come from very different life experiences and expectations.

If Katie Hopkins, Jennifer James, Amber Rudd or Peppa Pig can bring this issue to the attention and understanding of many who are oblivious (me only a week ago) then I'll kiss their feet.

(Not literal you get me that would be literal violence to me feelz)

Ereshkigal · 16/02/2018 20:37

We need to appeal to all kinds of women (and men) on this specific one issue. Even if we disagree with them on everything else. This is about more than political affiliations. It's about a huge clash of rights. People's Front of Judea is not going to cut it.