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:
fishdogpancakes · 14/02/2018 22:26

Angryattackkittens is another excellent poster. There's so many! Who would choose to do it is quite another thing.

PencilsInSpace · 14/02/2018 22:43

Lots of people think AWS in the labour party is a fringe issue. It isn't. Labour have basically 3 choices now:

  1. Amend the Equality act so that AWS are legal based on criteria other than the protected characteristic of sex. This is a change to primary legislation and as such would require a parliamentary debate on the definition of 'woman'.

  2. Fudge the equality act to try to make AWS inclusive of self-ID'd transwomen without changing primary legislation. This is why we raised £23k. If Labour were successful with this it would create dangerous case law that would affect every part of the equality act that mentions sex as a protected characteristic. Our £23K says they will have to have a proper legal debate on the definition of 'woman' if they go this route.

  3. Abandon AWS altogether. If these people tell us who they are, let's believe them. Not everyone thinks AWS are a a good idea in the first place. I do, and I'll continue believing that until we are decently represented. Possibly what pisses me off most about this whole clusterfuck is how we are having to fight for every sex-based concession all over again when the reasons for those concessions have not gone away.

Women are still woefully under-represented in parliament
women still need spaces away from men
women still need our own sporting categories

etc. etc.

Actually Labour have a 4th option - They could continue to have AWS and not break the law - i.e. they could continue to have AWS open to anybody with a birth cert. that says 'female' and off limits to anyone that doesn't have that.

HerFemaleness · 14/02/2018 22:46

To make this fly in the media we need a non political, decent, honest, non flappable mum from mumsnet, who is prepared to speak out.

Are you volunteering, @Everyonematters?

LangCleg · 14/02/2018 22:51

Pencils - great post. Pushing this on AWS will force Labour to make a meaningful choice. And it won't just affect them - it will affect all other parties with AWS such as the LibDems. And, perhaps most importantly, we will finally see how the law sees all this, which may encourage others. I'm still waiting for something to happen about single sex toilets in schools - which are required by a law which seems to get ignored if a trans pupil comes along (instead of providing third spaces).

Everyonematters · 14/02/2018 22:56

I wouldn't be the first in the queue but I wouldn't rule it out. We have lots of great voices here. And it doesn't have to be just one person.

But anyone who is going to be speaking for the masses needs to be able to voice the issues while remaining calm in the face of any TRA crazy. They have to be able to remain empathetic while also being able to shine the light on the challenges.

Everyonematters · 14/02/2018 22:59

Pencils also the option of making Self-ID law thus meaning they are no longer breaking it?

PencilsInSpace · 14/02/2018 23:03

YY, @JenniferJames has forced the issue and ensured that this debate will be had, either in parliament or in court Flowers

Or they'll say 'yeah well why do we have AWS anyway? (why do we have sex segregated spaces anyway? Who cares about women's sports anyway? Why do we bother collecting statistics anyway? bla bla bla) I just hope women can see through that BS.

BlindYeo · 14/02/2018 23:05

I want the GRA repealed. Its legal fiction has turned out to be the thin end of a dangerous wedge.

Every day I log on here and read more examples of TIMs making demands that undermine women's safety and legal protections, while useful idiots pander to them left, right and centre.

The law needs to be taken right back to biological reality.

Akire · 14/02/2018 23:07

are you looking for practical ideas to debate?

TheXXFactor · 14/02/2018 23:07

Sorry, Jennifer, but your Mumsnet Tories tweet was a fucking disgrace.

I wish you well in your campaign within Labour and I continue to admire your courage, but I have no confidence in your ability to unite women - you have made it clear that you put your devotion to Corbyn before women's needs. You seem to have no grasp of how you come across to people who are not socialists - I am afraid that you will alienate more supporters than you win over. Frankly you sound unhinged at times (the tweet being an example) and I suspect you will score a lot of own-goals if we allow you to speak for us. We are just starting to get some traction in the mainstream media and the last thing we need is a spokeswoman who cannot tailor her message to her audience, or who comes across as an extremist - that would play right into the TRAs' hands.

WPUK is doing a great job speaking up for all women in a reasoned way and will be getting my support.

Team Smash The Patriarchy needs Mumsnet input/representation
CurriedNoodle · 14/02/2018 23:15

Yes, sorry JJ, I admire all that you've done in bringing this to public attention but fear that if we put all our hopes in you it will backfire. You cannot be the woman to unite us all behind this cross party issue.

Though that may just be personal misgivings because you blocked me for asking you a non offensive question on twitter.

DaisyDrip · 14/02/2018 23:24

TheXXFactor: Sorry, Jennifer, but your Mumsnet Tories tweet was a fucking disgrace.

I wish you well in your campaign within Labour and I continue to admire your courage, but I have no confidence in your ability to unite women - you have made it clear that you put your devotion to Corbyn before women's needs. You seem to have no grasp of how you come across to people who are not socialists - I am afraid that you will alienate more supporters than you win over. Frankly you sound unhinged at times (the tweet being an example) and I suspect you will score a lot of own-goals if we allow you to speak for us. We are just starting to get some traction in the mainstream media and the last thing we need is a spokeswoman who cannot tailor her message to her audience, or who comes across as an extremist - that would play right into the TRAs' hands.

^ This a million times. Exactly to the point how I feel.

AngryAttackKittens · 15/02/2018 00:52

This is encouraging. Scotland is further down the path than the rest of the UK so focusing action there is fairly urgent. One concern though - Scottish Labour isn't really in a position to do much to block this, the SNP would need to be brought on board to get anything done. Does anyone here have any SNP contacts that they could leverage? Does anyone in the Labour group that Jennifer is referring to?

Also a thought specifically for Jennifer and for anyone else who's actively involved in politics- if Labour at any point plans to carry out a similar survey, is there a way to include responses from Brits currently living overseas that differentiates us from other overseas people who're not British citizens? I filled in the Scottish consultation but there was no way to note that I'm a Scot who's currently not living in Scotland other than adding it to the general comments at the end, which is useless for statistical purposes. Many people like me will eventually move back, and we all have family living in the UK, so obviously we have considerably more of a valid interest in the outcome of this situation than a random person from outside the UK would.

Terfinater · 15/02/2018 02:44

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

I'm confused. Would this person be expected to reveal their identity?

Datun has patiently explained the issues time and time again. I'm sure I'm not the only person who would happily sign something written by her. Although if there's a requirement to go public I'm not sure it's realistic.

AssignedPuuurfectAtBirth · 15/02/2018 09:43

"The crowdfunder women are all Labour women"

  • Actually that's not true, as demonstrated on the Spectator thread.

"Smash the Patriarchy'' just makes most people's eyes roll in their heads. Including mine. I also don't sign up for Marxist ideology.

I an fervently anti-Self ID and against the regressive trans ideology. The the marxist stuff is alienating to most people and we need to be non partisan

I supported the crowdfunder as it stood. Not all this shite. You don't speak for me

FaithHopeCharityDesperation · 15/02/2018 09:50

Agree with LassWiADelicateAir upthread:

You are talking in the language of The Guardian except it will no longer support you. You (generic you) need to address the readers of The Telegraph, The Mail, the Sun, the Spectator, Spiked etc.

They are not stupid but I don't think they are interested in ploughing through reams of feminist speak going on about the patriarchy. Sorry but it is right of centre men, Rod Liddle, Brendan O'Neill, Ben Shapiro who get the point across in a succinct way to people who otherwise would not care or be interested.

I'm extremely interested interested and invested in the gender self-ID debacle, and I glazed over trying to read the OP.

Make a clear, concise point & don't drown it with superfluous feminism analysis - if you don't, you'll (we'll) just continue to be written off as hysterical whingers.

QuentinSummers · 15/02/2018 09:51

I don't think it's fair to ask to have one person represent "mumsnet". The whole point here is our cross party, cross demographic reach. Its impossible to expect one person to represent that.

Really, it should be possible for the team to come and ask questions on Mumsnet without a) insulting us and b) getting offended by robust views.

I also was left smarting by the other thread so feeling a bit reluctant to put any more eggs in this basket.

AngryAttackKittens · 15/02/2018 09:52

I'm a radfem and while I agree with the sentiment of Team Smash the Patriarchy I'd like to suggest maybe not having that printed on the team stationary, if you get my drift.

FaithHopeCharityDesperation · 15/02/2018 09:58

Wrt to the 'voice of MN' being heard - there's a very simple solution:

Jeremy Corbyn has been invited to do a web chat on MN on this topic already & he's not bothered to accept/reject thus far.

If he's really interested then he could come on and address us directly (ditto the leaders of all parties).

AngryAttackKittens · 15/02/2018 10:03

I'm as frustrated with Corbyn as everyone else, but I suspect part of the problem is that he will be hearing from many women who are enthusiastic TRAs themselves. Most of those women will be young, and he's actively courting the youth vote. One "voice of mumsnet" is easier to dismiss and not really representing women as a group than dozens or hundreds of women all making the same points in slightly different ways would be, which is what you'd get with a webchat (as long as it wasn't being censored to shit via aggressive moderation).

FaithHopeCharityDesperation · 15/02/2018 10:07

• Trans equality should be based on trans as a characteristic, and not on erasing the female sex as a characteristic.

• Females should not be forced to adopt trans ideology/biological essentialism/genderism.

• A woman is simply an adult female.

Out of the whole OP, these are the 3 key points.

Add to this that we support those suffering with gender dysphoria, and also those who wish to push the boundaries of their sex - but not at the expense of women as a group; they must be seen as they are - a distinct & separate issue.

nauticant · 15/02/2018 10:07

Still, if the "Smash the Patriarchy" branding gets established it will drive away all those horrible Tories like Janice Turner and James Kirkup.

Once any possible influence of "psychopathic legal entities cravenly serving the business class" has been purged and we have an ideologically pure movement, nothing can stop us.

RedToothBrush · 15/02/2018 10:25

Im not a rad fem. I dont even go as far as really calling myself a feminist. I prefer to support evidence based approach which remembers to be critical of methodology. And then call bull shit when something is presented in a way that is, well bullshit.

There are lots of under represented groups within women on this subject.

There is the feminist group.
There is the survivors group. (Sexual assault / rape / abuse)
There is the family group (wives / children / parents / siblings)
There is the health group (those who are concerned about a possible link between autism and trans which particularly affects women).
There is the lesbian group who are facing homophobia and have been shut out of LGBT representation.
There are sportswomen who face being marginalised out or are silenced by governing bodies / organisations
There are women in politics who are being directly marginalised and suspended from parties.
There is a group of women who for religious reasons will be particularly affected.
There is a socioeconomic disadvantaged group such as homeless or those in other vulnerable groups.

There is also a general grouping with no single specific vested interest but more general concerns about how their rights will be affected.

Yes these interests do overlap, but it might be worth seeing it in those terms and trying to build up a cross party coalition of women who cover all these bases and to specialise in representing a particular grouping as this has such far ranging and wide implications.

It would also be worth trying to get trans women and trans men who are not being represented and are being marginalised by the tras to be included in some way too.

Eat the elephant one bite at a time. Show the scale or concerns and how they particularly after women and why sex and gender should never be confused.

LangCleg · 15/02/2018 10:46

Yes these interests do overlap, but it might be worth seeing it in those terms and trying to build up a cross party coalition of women who cover all these bases and to specialise in representing a particular grouping as this has such far ranging and wide implications.

Exactly. Which is why the Miller report was such a disgrace. Quite a few of the groups you outline were invited to submit evidence (though not from the feminist camp). Nobody but trans pressure groups were invited back in person. No evidence but that from trans pressure groups were included in the eventual report.

That exercise, when you go through what happened from start to finish, was like something from a tinpot dictatorship, not an advanced democracy.

The whole thing needs to begin again. And we women - here and everywhere - have got to use every means at our disposal to ensure it's meaningful this time.

In the end, a few minor spats and intemperate comments between us just have to be set aside. Infuriating though that is.

qumquat · 15/02/2018 10:47

I think WPUK are amazing and we should put our support and money behind them. Thank you JJ for raising the issue so spectacularly but I think it needs to move well away from the party political sphere to gain traction.

Swipe left for the next trending thread