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:
OvaHere · 15/02/2018 10:59

We have a number of trans people posting here now who are gender critical. At the moment their views are spread out across many threads so I wonder if it would be useful for them to have their own support/discussion thread which they can use to approach these issues and campaigning from their own perspective.

Of course they may not want to do this for various reasons and that's fine too. It's just something that has seemed helpful for the trans widows and the parents of trans children.

RedToothBrush · 15/02/2018 11:02

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.

Well there is a cross party campaign strategy right there. Pestering Amber Rudd to reopen the gathering of evidence to be more representative.

Who can argue against that?

I mean who can argue against that and be serious about taking the concerns of women seriously. Thats what you'd expect in political terms of representation.

It also shows up why having someone as a womans officer who is trans and only pushes a trans agenda and tries to suppress discussion of the matter is just so problematic.

AngryAttackKittens · 15/02/2018 11:04

If it was done here it should be possible to preserve anonymity. In fact rather than Mumsnet electing a representative to go speak to the Labour women's group it would make much more sense for the Labour women to come on there and talk to a group of us.

(With the understanding that gender critical does not equal any particular position on the left/right spectrum this time, please. If the goal is to gather women's perspectives then all women are worth listening to even if you disagree with them on other issues.)

AngryAttackKittens · 15/02/2018 11:06

Miller shouldn't be involved in any further investigation into this issue even if the Tories are doing it for exactly that reason. She's already demonstrated that she isn't capable of managing the process properly.

RedToothBrush · 15/02/2018 11:15

Also I think we need to take issue with the concept of 'cis privilege'.

There are many women who has far less privilege in society than trans people.

Privilege is not uniform and consistent alone sex OR gender lines. To say it is, is a MASSIVE falsehood.

DaisyDrip · 15/02/2018 11:16

Miller shouldn't be involved in any further investigation into this issue even if the Tories are doing it for exactly that reason. She's already demonstrated that she isn't capable of managing the process properly.

I agree. I believe a totally independent body needs to look into this and woman and woman's groups must be listened to. IMO politicians live in ivory towers where little effects them, hence the need for real woman to look into this not those who simply wish to virtue signal and show their inclusivity for votes.

TallulahWaitingInTheRain · 15/02/2018 11:20

With the understanding that gender critical does not equal any particular position on the left/right spectrum this time, please

This. And perhaps we should also keep an eye out for provocateurs trying to divide and conquer us along left/right or party lines. I hasten to add that I absolutely don't have any existing posters in mind when I say this, but it just seems an obvious step for anyone who wishes to silence us to take. Let's try and keep politics out of it.

noraclavicle · 15/02/2018 11:21

I'm sorry but you lost me with your "Mumsnet Tories" on twitter.

I’m not a ‘Mumsnet Tory’ but I didn’t like that comment any more than you. I despise Corbyn and am very uneasy with JJ’s apparent ‘Zionist’ obsessions. But I think we have to get past disagreements if we’re to make progress on this issue. If we start fighting amongst ourselves over our political differences we’ll have less impact. I hope JJ agrees on this. The outline she’s given above sounds sensible and has my support.

AngryAttackKittens · 15/02/2018 11:25

Best way to head the provocateurs off at the pass would be to not even open the door for them in the first place. This is a women's issue, not a party political one. Once the basic list of what GC women as a group want to get out of this process is in place each party can then figure out how to implement within their own area of influence, which motions to table at the party conference, etc.

DaisyDrip · 15/02/2018 11:28

But I think we have to get past disagreements if we’re to make progress on this issue.

While I totally agree with this I have no desire to see JJ speak for me and I suspect many others feel the same. There are woman here on MN who I have huge respect for and I would love to see them speak on my behalf. However, with the action and reaction from the TRA I fully understand why they may not wish to do this publicly.

AngryAttackKittens · 15/02/2018 11:31

If there's going to be a media point person then that person absolutely must have advanced code switching skills and be able to tailor what they're saying to the audience they're saying it to. I don't mean by changing the basic content, I mean by using language that resonates and avoiding language that has the opposite impact.

TallulahWaitingInTheRain · 15/02/2018 11:32

We don't have to speak with one voice. The issue is so stark that most GC women's views will be broadly compatible anyway. And our strength is that so many of us are and will be in agreement, across all classes and the whole political spectrum.

Datun · 15/02/2018 11:35

Well there is a cross party campaign strategy right there. Pestering Amber Rudd to reopen the gathering of evidence to be more representative.

Exactly. It needs revisiting. With full representation from the people whom it will affect, this time.

I'm not political, although have become more so since being on mumsnet.

I realise, like many other women, that this shouldn't be about politics.

But I think that's been naive, certainly on my part.

Initially, it was being used politically, to court votes from the youth.

But it's fast becoming the kind of hot potato, that causes division, political infighting and forces people into partisan positions that they are conflicted about. It will be a tipping point for women's political affiliation.

And that ought to wake up any savvy politician, in terms of leverage.

What it shouldn't do is prevent women from coalescing to fight it, and not have them condemned for disagreeing with a political ideology.

We shouldn't just try to set politics aside, we should be actively encouraging it.

JJ seemed to be saying that if you want to fight this, you need to take what I have said and show it to your own political party. Because she seems to want to dispense with people who don't agree with her politics. But that won't work. As soon as one party caves, the rest will follow. Because the reason for the caving, will be self evident: half the population disagrees.

The bullet points in the opening post seem strong, incisive and comprehensive.

Especially the part about misogyny being a hate crime. Talking in black and white about equality laws, asking for exemptions, asking for impact assessments is brilliant, but does not address the incredible misogyny that seems to be woven like a thread of white hot fury through this issue.

And, in my opinion it's just about the most important point there is.

So in summary, JJ, accept that this will go nowhere without the support of all women, irrespective of their political affiliation.

Keep it as far away as possible from any political point scoring.

And understand, that only a fraction of people are aware of this. It's only right-wing press who are bringing the issue to the public's attention. Without them, we would still be nowhere.

I understand that your points are coming from a Scottish newspaper that publishes social and political discourse?

So your points, presumably, are aimed at what is currently happening in Scotland.

But we have Maria Millers transgender equality report as the only official publication. It hadn't occurred to me that if the government want to consult, then starting from scratch with that, is the most obvious solution.

As I said, politics are not my strong point, so I might have got that wrong.

I also agree with allowing this to play out right here, on mumsnet.

If a representative from labour wants to talk to women, they can start a thread. It's by far the best way.

It's transparent, it's inclusive.

They could go away, to digest links, and comments. Saying I'll be back tomorrow.

Part of the problem with this is that being given two hours with your notes, a desk, and an arbitrator often fails to convey everything.

Or, you know, they could just give up a few hours and read some of the threads that are here already. Everything you need to know is contained within them.

DaisyDrip · 15/02/2018 11:36

AngryAttackKittens Quite! The spokesperson can't be bogged down in any form of dogma, they must be able to speak to an audience of woman of all kinds as well as getting reasonable men of all descriptions to understand our argument and support our cause.

LangCleg · 15/02/2018 11:58

If there's going to be a media point person then that person absolutely must have advanced code switching skills and be able to tailor what they're saying to the audience they're saying it to. I don't mean by changing the basic content, I mean by using language that resonates and avoiding language that has the opposite impact.

YES YES YES!

TallulahWaitingInTheRain · 15/02/2018 12:02

(Or we could just put them up against India Willoughby. They wouldn't have any opportunity to make any of their points but everyone would peak transed anyway)

More seriously, perhaps we should think about formulating a 3-sentence soundbyte that sum up our position

AngryAttackKittens · 15/02/2018 12:07

My cat could win a debate with India Willoughby.

FaithHopeCharityDesperation · 15/02/2018 12:12

More seriously, perhaps we should think about formulating a 3-sentence soundbyte that sum up our position

If you have a penis you are not a woman.
I am not a 'cis' woman, I am a woman.
Transwomen are not women, they are transwomen: a group of people who are entirely separate & distinct.

Patodp · 15/02/2018 12:14

Only males can be transwomen.
Only women can be women.
Women's spaces should be protected on the basis of sex, not identity.

Gacapa · 15/02/2018 12:14

I'm fed up of this. I had lunch with my friend yesterday, who is vehemently peak trans, against self ID etc. We like to have a good catch up discussion when we meet and go over what's the latest etc. And it's all great and passionate until Corbyn is mentioned and then it's just making excuses for him. Oh he doesn't get it yet, he's so busy, blah blah blah...

My opinion is that Corbyn is showing us exactly who he is.

FaithHopeCharityDesperation · 15/02/2018 12:14

Pesky 4th sentence to add (sorry to go more than 3 Blush):

I support the rights & protections of transwomen absolutely, but not at the expense of women.

TallulahWaitingInTheRain · 15/02/2018 12:20

I think a key point that needs communicating is that we're not talking about old-fashioned transsexuals: that the trans umbrella is now so wide that anyone, including intact sex offenders, legitimately fits under it.

I think lots of people really don't get this.

FaithHopeCharityDesperation · 15/02/2018 12:23

YY Tallulah - that's the biggest misunderstanding I think.

AngryAttackKittens · 15/02/2018 12:30

That video of Stefoknee talking about how he likes having sex with his "adopted father" while pretending to be 6 years old where he also has to adjust his skirt to hide his erection might be an eye-opener. It would immediately be met with "but obviously that's not a trans woman", and the thing is, in terms of where the trans movement is now, yes it is. He was allowed to stay in a women's shelter. That's what "trans woman" means now, and that's why so many women are so alarmed.

LangCleg · 15/02/2018 12:35

I still like ^if you can't see sex, you can't see sexism" best.

Swipe left for the next trending thread