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:
Valentinesfart · 17/02/2018 11:22

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.

urgh. I don't want to find a random pube in my soap that doesn't belong to me thanks. And I really don't think lye and genitals are a good match anway

OrderOnline · 17/02/2018 11:42

A taste of Derry Girls!

m.youtube.com/watch?v=8M63wM84qe0

BetsyM00 · 17/02/2018 12:30

Just having a think about stickers.

Amazon sell A4 sheets with 8 labels here and printing templates can be found here.

What do you think about these gender neutral stickers? Should I add a link to a website on them?
drive.google.com/file/d/1UIHKeOz5-iN9xeDwyfisEPcv1yJ4_h0C/view?usp=sharing

Cerealcomplainer · 17/02/2018 12:38

Yes - add a link to fair play for women maybe?

GuardianLions · 17/02/2018 12:42

Thankyou donkey, datun, cereal, pencils and red

All really helpful!

Wrt to the issue donkey about the contradiction between aggressive medicalisation of kids, but none and self-ID for adults - it is such an important issue and it needs unpicking. Are they the same people pushing for them?

Who has been lobbying on the inside of the medical establishment? Has it been misguided parents, big pharma or TIMs an TIFs who have undergone 'reassignment for themselves?

Who has been lobbying for self ID? I doubt that is big pharma. The whole thing is highly odd. I know that ATH put out that lunatic statement about the right to experiment on their own bodies,etc. But I doubt the crazies have had much political traction.

The fact it s a load of contradiction and it is unclear who is pushing for it and who benefits, it is really hard to explain it to someone without using the vague word 'they'. It is 'The Man'?

I think the issue needs examining and a campaign its own right, because it is such a strong case - adults pushing their harmful ideological agenda (possible eugenics) onto innocent kids, roping in the entire medical establishment.

And the other issue of 'affirmation' meaning that kids are illegally obtaining their own hormones. What is all that about? Why is this so easy/common?

Would the NSPCC get involved?

It is so convoluted and huge, that is the reason I wanted to keep it off of that document, because I want to keep the focus, on stimulating that feeling of 'my rights are being taken away!' , rather than 'look at the creepy, creeping, contradictory, malevolent, child-hating, homophobic, possibly paedophilic, eugenics project taking over our society from the inside'..

Although it is true, I would like to offer people some clarity about where to direct their concerns. It is a HUGE issue.

JenniferJames · 17/02/2018 12:57

'Self-id is a predator's charter'

That is very, very good. Straight to the point and powerful.. would make a good chant.

OP posts:
OvaHere · 17/02/2018 12:59

I vaguely recall something else being called a predator's charter in the past - can anyone remember what it might have been?

SophoclesTheFox · 17/02/2018 14:29

No, you're right to shy away from it for you statement of clarification, guardian. Stay simple, stay clear. Wondering about the deeper motivations isn't what needed to get the message out. Though if you did, you could allude to authoritarianism of trans rights activism - they are very much for telling other people what to do (inc making decisions for children) and very much against rules being applied to them.

GuardianLions · 17/02/2018 14:51

All great points

DonkeySkin · 17/02/2018 15:29

Yes, I agree Sophocles that Guardian is right not to bring up 'trans' kids in the doc on sex segregation. But I do think feminists should raise it in other contexts.

WRT to who is behind all this, I think there are a lot of different interest groups and money sources driving the trans agenda, along with a kind of collective cultural madness wherein people (especially liberal feminists) are entranced by the false idea that humans can 'transcend' their sexed bodies and be entirely self-determined, self-created individuals.

It's massively complex and frankly sinister, and not something you'd want to bring up with someone new to the issue, because as Guardian says, you can easily come across as crazy and paranoid. That's only because the TRA agenda is so crazy that describing it in detail makes you seem crazy. I mean they are selling dildos for four-year-olds, FFS! (I remember when I first started discussing trans issues with my DP, he was like, 'You must have it wrong, this can't actually be happening.')

But we don't actually have to get into the who is behind this stuff when educating people about the issues. You don't have to say 'them', because you can say 'trans activists'. And that is absolutely true. It's the same people pushing the contradictory ideas.

Every trans rights group aggressively pushes self-ID of legal sex for adults along with extreme medical interventions for children. And they have successfully lobbied to change laws so that medical professionals cannot explore other reasons a child might have discomfit with their sex, as well as viciously targeting doctors who express caution about sterilising these children, such that medical professionals are now afraid to speak out on this issue.

LangCleg · 17/02/2018 15:40

Every trans rights group aggressively pushes self-ID of legal sex for adults along with extreme medical interventions for children. And they have successfully lobbied to change laws so that medical professionals cannot explore other reasons a child might have discomfit with their sex

This just makes me want to cry.

RedToothBrush · 17/02/2018 15:52

I remember when I first started discussing trans issues with my DP, he was like, 'You must have it wrong, this can't actually be happening

I'm still there. DH gets it, but only to a point. He keeps saying you are wrong, you are exaggerating, you are over stating it.

So I tell him to look up each incident and concern. So far, he's come back everytime going ok maybe you have a point.

I've shown him this by Miranda Yardley this afternoon.
mirandayardley.com/en/what-autogynephilia-is-and-what-is-it-not-a-brief-note/

Telling him who Miranda was and to read the comments after in the process.

He went very quiet, pulled a very distressed face and made noises of disbelief and did goldfish impressions.

I also agree for the purposes of what you are working on Guardians to leave out the kids stuff. What you've done is lay a foundation stone. That issue stems from it.

It comes up once people start to scratch the surface.

Writersblock2 · 17/02/2018 16:01

I genuinely think most men won’t get it in the same way we do. This is our lives, our reality. We have to live with the daily minutae of abuse from men. Most men, even the amazing and patient ones like my DH, who listens to my outrage and agrees with my points, doesn’t get it. Not in the same way. And he’s bloody lucky he doesn’t. That’s not his fault.

In many ways it just makes me fight harder.

BeyondTerfyCassandra · 17/02/2018 17:14

They don't writers. DH is great (now... it took a while) and does get it, but even he was going on about the horrible thing being something-or-other (can't remember exactly what he was talking about, sport maybe?) and I was arguing back "No, it is worse than that. Women were treated as chattel for thousands of years, haven't even had the vote for 100 years, and it was all because we 'had different brains' to men. Pretty pink lady brains. We could be locked up on the say so of our husbands or fathers and existed only to pop out children. I will not accept that there is such thing as a female brain - short of it being in an actual bloody female. It's going backwards, and the idea of going backwards to that time that is fucking scary for me as an actual female"

OvaHere · 17/02/2018 17:30

The 100 years thing really resonates with me now as someone approaching middle age. It relates to the whole passage of time perception idea.

When I was young the concept of 100 years ago may as well have been a 1000 years ago - it's only now I truly realise what a recent development it really is. Combine that with a fairly recent realisation that progress is not always linear makes it truly scary.

xxmarksthespot · 17/02/2018 17:43

"The 100 years thing really resonates with me now as someone approaching middle age. It relates to the whole passage of time perception idea. "

Universal suffrage was 90 years ago, 1928. My mother is nearly that old and one of my still living neighbours is older than that. It is not so long ago at all.

RedToothBrush · 17/02/2018 23:21

Existing law in other areas is not compatible with sex change. This from two years ago. This from two years ago. Yet another loophole that puts women and children at risk and needs to be addressed one way or another. Imagine if this isnt changed and self id comes in.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/victim-vile-bondage-paedophile-tells-8608834.amp?service=responsive&__twitter_impression=true
Victim of vile bondage paedophile tells of disgust after abuser walks free because she used to be man

Owen, 61, admitted two counts of causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity.

But she was spared jail and walked free from court with a two-year conditional discharge when the judge admitted he had difficulty sentencing a transsexual because courses designed to help sex offenders reform were only available to men.

If self id comes in, the knock on effect to other law HAS to be looked at. I'm sure this isnt the only example.

Elletorro · 19/02/2018 20:35

Hi all. I have 2 thoughts sparked by RTB’s posts about these boards:

  1. We need to set the agenda and not be refuting the TRA propaganda.

So we create are own. And it has to be visceral, like Trump/ Leave alliance style messaging. Don’t lead with data and rationality. So something like memes of Matthew Falder and “Protect kids- say no to self id” . You could do that with Lian Huntley etc. Play the propaganda game and learn from Trump and Cambridge Analytica, appeal to basic human instinct.

  1. JJ consider contacting the Equality and Human Rights Commission. They might support your claim. They take a long time to decide so best to contact them early doors.
BlindYeo · 19/02/2018 22:11

Elletorro

I am inferring a slur on Leave voters with your basic human instinct comment. But for anyone who does think they are an amorphous rationality-free zone of broad spectrum hatred, I'd hazard a guess that they at least possess the virtue of being less likely on average to need peak transing with propaganda - because they are less likely to believe in such woolly crap in the first place.

If we are going to go in for some broad brush stereotyping, I think it's your Remain-voting, well-heeled, politically influential, metropolitan Lib/Lab/Green supporters who are the biggest stumbling block right now to exposing the transgender lobby for what it is (which is why I can't vote for any of them right now). And if they are the ones who need persuading through emotion and propaganda not rationality and fact, what does it say about them?

Read the workplace thread about people feeling silenced in academia by the bonkers 'transwomen are women' meme and weep for freedom of speech in universities. Meanwhile down at your local working class boozer you can probably be more confident of a warm reception - and no threat of losing you your job - if you suggest a bloke in a dress is still a bloke.

I agree with you on highlighting cases like Liam Huntley but that is not misleading propaganda, that is a fact.

Elletorro · 19/02/2018 22:25

No slur intended.

Both sides used propaganda. Leave’s propaganda was better. It worked.

The basic human instinct I am referring to is protecting the young.

And propaganda doesn’t mean lying. The slogan on the side of the bus wasn’t a lie. It was a suggestion, “let’s spend it all on the NHS instead”. A very powerful suggestion.

Farage’s Poster was designed to appeal directly to emotions and fears. It wasn’t about data and facts was it? That was Project Fear, which didn’t work and which was always on the back foot and which failed to set the agenda.

Trump and Brexit won. Im interested in winning and I think there’s a lot to learn from them.

RedToothBrush · 20/02/2018 00:13

So something like memes of Matthew Falder and “Protect kids- say no to self id” .
If you are referring to self id you are actually responding to the trans agenda not setting your own one.

Setting your own agenda is pushing for women only spaces without mentioning trans or trans aims.

Elletorro · 20/02/2018 00:22

Point taken.

But do you think we can harness raw emotions to do that? What are the most immediate and the strongest human instincts?

borntobequiet · 20/02/2018 07:44

NSPCC on board? They seem to be entirely quiet on this.
Frankly I am shocked and will be contacting them.

borntobequiet · 20/02/2018 08:11

I mean on the use of medicine and surgery used to treat children and adolescents for transgender issues.
I have posted this before on another thread, but will do so again as to me it was an eye opener. Stats from the Tavistock clinic showing the increase in referrals from 2009/10 to 2015/16.
tavistockandportman.nhs.uk/documents/408/gids-service-statistics.pdf

OrderOnline · 20/02/2018 08:49

Create and distribute your meme idea, as Jennifer said, do all that you expect others to do.

Swipe left for the next trending thread