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:
GuardianLions · 17/02/2018 01:24

Thanks goals

DonkeySkin · 17/02/2018 05:19

Thank you so much Guardian Lions for that excellent, clear document.

The part where you explain the difference between sex and gender, and the way the latter is often used incorrectly in place of sex, is particularly valuable. So much of the TRA agenda relies on the eliding the difference between those two terms.

One small thing I noticed was that the doc uses 'sex segregation' sometimes and 'same-sex segregation' at other times - there is no need for the latter term, as the 'same' is already implied in 'sex segregation'.

Although it's not directly relevant to this doc, I did want to talk about a point that was brought up earlier in the thread, where some people have suggested that we can't talk about the sterilisation and mutilation of children and self ID at the same time, or risk confusing the issue.

I disagree with that, and I actually think it's one of the things that needs aggressively highlighting: the fact that transgender activists are fighting for the demedicalisation of trans identity for adults at the same time as they are promoting the extreme medicalisation of children diagnosed as 'trans'. Think about it: adult transgender activists are trying to enforce on children the kind of extreme, permanent bodily interventions that they refuse for themselves.

At the same time as they are claiming that no sex dysmorphia is needed for adults to declare themselves 'trans', they are saying that children diagnosed as 'trans' need to have their puberties stopped and their breasts cut off or they will kill themselves. According to current trans ideology, a fertile adult male who loves his penis can be a 'woman' just because he says so, but a boy who supposedly has the same 'condition' needs to go on puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones that will leave him with shrivelled gonads and a micro-penis. Rather than sidestepping this hypocrisy in the TRA agenda, I think we should be pointing it out as often as we can.

(Not that I'm suggesting you include it in your doc, which I appreciate deals solely with sex segregation).

Patodp · 17/02/2018 07:24
Grin God you lot are never happy. "Katie Hopkins is making noise" MN- I'm not happy about that. Don't like her. "Jennifer James is making noise" MN I'm not happy about that, she called someone a Tory. Don't like her.

You can't only have nice people that you like onside like Linda Bellos and Janice Turner. We need all people from all backgrounds because this is an issue that harms all women from all backgrounds.

We are facing the biggest assault on women's rights ever seen.
We need people to be shouting about it. We need to lift the veil of misinformation and ignorance that is helping self-ID creep in and could eventually be irreversible. Whatever personal opinions you have of individuals on side you shouldn't let them get in the way of preventing us uniting on this issue.

Katie Hopkins is a professional contrarian and gets people irate, but one thing she does is get news out there to huge numbers. If her followers find out even a small fraction of what is happening under our noses and spread the word, people who don't like KH can make up their own mind as to what they make if it. My guess is more peak trans.

Datun · 17/02/2018 07:34

GuardianLions

The bit where you say don't we already have the right to sex segregation?

You mention the equality legislation, that says sex is a protected characteristic. (Under EA law).

Then it says it also protects transsexuals who have a gender recognition certificate.. That's not quite accurate.

The current EA legislation protects any man who says he's going to be trans, irrespective of whether he has a gender recognition certificate or not. (only about 1% have a certificate).

You just have to have 'proposed, started or completed the process to change attributes of your sex'. Then you automatically have the protected characteristic.

SophoclesTheFox · 17/02/2018 08:20

Absolutely, donkeyskin - we really can't say this often enough: there is no coherent push forward for trans rights because the ideology itself is completely contradictory and incoherent. It's heads I win, tails you lose. We're all girls together when it suits, but then women have to STFU when it doesn't.

I'd also go one step further with the point about the push to medicalise children, while simultaneously pushing to remove any medicalisation for adults: Cui bono? Who profits from that? What is their motive? We have words for adults who project inappropriate adult motivations and desires onto children, and they're not good ones. There is quite an unpleasant underbelly to be found to that.

fishdogpancakes · 17/02/2018 08:29

twitter.com/lushcosmetics/status/964156050017587201

Adding Lush to my personal boycott list.

AngryAttackKittens · 17/02/2018 08:32

Isn't it Lush who also do the days where their staff are naked other than aprons? They claim that nobody is forced to participate, but given how peer pressure tends to operate in the workplace I'm not buying it, and it's a stupid stunt anyway.

TheBadgersMadeMeDoIt · 17/02/2018 08:52

Oh for fuck's sake, Lush. Just sell your revolting soap and shut up.

OrderOnline · 17/02/2018 08:53

An insight into why Self-ID in Ireland works differently.

www.channel4.com/programmes/derry-girls/episode-guide

OrderOnline · 17/02/2018 08:59

Irish culture wouldn't tolerate narcissistic behaviour from men in women's spaces.

ShotsFired · 17/02/2018 09:00

@fishdogpancakes I'm leaving little notes in the ladies toilets where ever I go, just spreading the word...

Oooh I like this. I'm thinking stickers on the back of the door/on the loo roll holder - anywhere in eyeline.

"Would you be happy if a man was allowed in here just by saying "I am a woman"? No? Then protest against the Self-Id proposals google "

??

OrderOnline · 17/02/2018 09:02

Everyone would know all about the background of the transwoman in their community, nosey non transient culture.

Cerealcomplainer · 17/02/2018 09:09

Guardian that is a fab document. One comment - I don’t think ‘Boy Scouts’ exist anymore? Scouts round me (England) have admitted boys and girls for a while now.

RedToothBrush · 17/02/2018 09:12

Lush are going done the cosmetic political publicity route like the body shop before them. It was a cracking sales pitch to a particular age group back then too. Of course when push came to shove and Anita Rodderick sold up to those the company criticised for their practices so heavily...

Pr stunt. They don't believe this stuff.

RedToothBrush · 17/02/2018 09:16

Good document guardian.

RedToothBrush · 17/02/2018 09:43

The one thing that document doesn't include is that some of those issues require discussing politically and that sex segregated political discussion is needed because of the sensitivity of some of those issues.

Some women simply wont go to a meeting or discuss politics of that nature with a man present.

So much of this debate comes from that need for that representation.

A womens officer who is a woman and a aws which is for woman.

If that isnt on the document in some way, we lose crucial representation and the ability and space to convey sex based concerns in an environment we are comfortable with.

PencilsInSpace · 17/02/2018 09:47

That's looking really good GuardianLions. I think the section 'Don’t we already have the right to choose sex segregation?' needs clarifying a bit. It would be great to have @DoctorW s input on that.

I think it would pack more punch if the examples (Why is it important ...) were moved right to the top so people can instantly relate it to their own lives.

Agerbilatemycardigan · 17/02/2018 09:51

Mine too fishdogpancakes

I've just sent them a furious tweet about referring to us as CIS women Angry

OvaHere · 17/02/2018 10:05

Not sure if this fits on this thread but I was reading this twitter thread

twitter.com/FemalesFighting/status/964738951809449984

I started thinking about this in relation to what JJ said about how self ID for AWS creates a situation where men (the type that know they're men) could have a reasonable case to bring that they are discriminated against for not being allowed on AWS also.

Surely this would apply to car insurance too? If males are getting access to cheaper car insurance (and we are talking a huge difference for young M vs young F) just by changing their drivers licence to F this is a huge loophole - I believe you can get your licence changed without having had any medical treatment.

This is exactly the type of loophole that would gain traction on reddit/4chan sites and I would have thought leave insurance companies open to a big legal challenge on the grounds of equality.

Sorry if this is a bit inarticulate but the TLDR is that insurance companies care a lot about money and payouts so maybe another business that needs to be aware of ramifications.

Elletorro · 17/02/2018 10:10

Hi all

A single line of attack

Self id is a predator’s charter

RedToothBrush · 17/02/2018 10:21

I fear aws will go. But there is a real case that specific womens political coaching programmes and womens representation MUST be along biological lines because of part of the nature of what is currently holding women back from getting involved in politics. This then leaves a channel by which gender nonconforming programmes also need to be set up too. So that representation and issues where there is conflict between the two groups doesn't handicap and silence.

Notably, there are trans exclusive spaces which are emerging elsewhere. This is consistent with that.

In terms of aws and representation, the way to go might be different: party have to present a much more balanced number of candidates nationally for a general election. There was a report last week which stated that men were effectively seat blocking safe seats and women and minorities were forced to fight it out for marginals.

Saying that the number of women candidates stood need to be a certain percentage overall and this is a requirement on a party level or even in law for national parties standing in more than 30 seats.

This would be problematic for the WEP I suppose but I dont believe they've stood that many candidates anyway.

For labour, this might actually force the deselection of some male mps, if there is an excess of them. And it might get some women into safe seats.

This might be a side step that Jennifer's campaign could take if the legal way to protect AWS is looking shaky.

RedToothBrush · 17/02/2018 10:26

I believe this would also force the development of women on a local politics level as an indirect effect.

Cerealcomplainer · 17/02/2018 10:59

More musings brought on by Guardian’s excellent document.

I have far less of a problem with facilities being unisex if it is clear that is what they are. If M and S made clear all changing rooms were unisex for example.
I know that is not acceptable to everyone, and not in certain situations, but at least it is truthful.

What I really object to is something that says women being open to men.

I object for 2 reasons and the first is safety. I personally would feel safer in something labelled unisex than if I encountered a man in the ‘women’s’. I would have been prepared for men in the first place, and I would feel protected by the other men in the situation, if you see what I mean. Because, as we know, ‘not all men are like that’.

But in a ‘allowing men in the women’s’ situation, I am ambushed, I am unprotected by the presence of any other man, and I am being used to validate something I don’t believe.

Does that make sense?

fishdogpancakes · 17/02/2018 11:03

Cereal Yes "ambushed" really sums it up doesn't it. Encapsulates the uneasy feeling.

Shots Way to go! That's the sort of thing I've been doing on post it notes.

Valentinesfart · 17/02/2018 11:21

God you lot are never happy. "Katie Hopkins is making noise"

We are facing the biggest assault on women's rights ever seen

And immigrants feel similarly, so no, not going to be happy about someone who thinks genocide jokes being "on side".

Swipe left for the next trending thread