Team Smash The Patriarchy needs Mumsnet input/representation

[JenniferJames]

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.

Also, that the evidence base regarding the long-term physical and mental health outcomes of halting puberty and sterilising young people using cross-sex hormones is inadequate and we are calling for more research and more cautious practice in the meantime.

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

That has to be another requirement. Jennifer has been bloody rude about & to journalists who are on our side. Janice has been in this from the beginning, she was at Speaker's Corner, she grilled Maria Miller to the point where Miller almost walked out and she's really stuck her neck out for us.

Whatever Jennifer thinks about "psychopathic legal entities cravenly serving the business class" we do NOT want to be alienating the media. Although I'm happy for her to be as rude as she likes about Owen Jones

I would like to see some clear and detailed work on how statutory safeguarding responsibilities conflict with the trans demands. We've talked about how TRAs misrepresent the EA and bully orgs into acting on a faulty understanding of the EA. But nobody has got down to the nitty gritty with safeguarding yet.

It's less talked about than the other aspects but I'd really like to see research into the impact blocking puberty has on cognitive development, because if the idea is to let the kid mature a bit before they make the final decision then there's not much point in doing that if they are not in fact maturing, cognitively speaking. Anecdotally the kids on puberty blockers who I've seen interviewed do seem notably behind their peers in that sense.

A short soundbite?

'Sex is not gender'

the impact blocking puberty has on cognitive development

I don't know that I'd be able to find it again, but I read a study saying 5-10 points loss of IQ. Not to mention other aspects.

We need a document that collates the health impact of puberty blockers followed by cross sex hormones, so increased cancer risk, impact on bone density, infertility, etc. Ideally a one-sheet that you can hand to someone, have them scan through, and then say, OK, now you know what the risks are, are you OK with people making the decision to undergo this process at 10 or 12?

I am so late to the party with this thread...

Is anyone from MN going to be a spokesperson?
Are you all getting a document together to represent the MNers at the mo?

Jennifer, I donated to the crowdfunder and thank you for your work in getting this issue out there.

I am a party member but will leave if self-id comes in officially. I have never been a Corbyn supporter but was still disappointed by them and don't think there is any excuse for him not being up to speed on this issue by now. I would love to support a cross-party campaign and think any campaign has to be clear about what different politicians have said - I do feel you are applying rose-tinted glasses to JC's comments and I won't be able to support a group that does that. There is far too much confusion and obfuscation about what is, at base, quite a simple issue.

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

This x 1000. I'm afraid I opened that Spectator post and started losing interest from the opening "comrades" line. Now I know about this Tweet as well...no. I'm not going to be belittled and patronised by a woman on top of all the rest of the same shit coming from TRAs.

We have enough amazing, articulate women here that don't need to resort to childish digs because they can't accept that not everyone worships at the altar of St Jeremy (who has shown exactly who he is too...).

Whatever Jennifer thinks about "psychopathic legal entities cravenly serving the business class"

The whole tone, in my view is wrong if you want to engage the wider public.

Jennifer asks Surely no-one in the Scottish government believes that women don’t suffer as a result of our female bodies and on and on and on.

If you put that question to the average person on the Morningside omnibus they would look at you in incomprehension and think you were talking about period pains.

Jennifer, and she is by no means the only person doing this, is using a form of language which certain sections of the left recognise and understand but they do not agree with on this occasion and which is a complete turn off for everyone else.

Julie Bindel did the same 're Hampstead ponds.

She could have said something like women for reasons relating to safety and privacy want single sex spaces - they don't want to be gawped at but what she actually said was Sex is a protected class for a good reason, because we have been raised under the patriarchy.

Do you think that swayed anyone?

I do think that 'Smash the patriarchy' really does alienate some. I find the term, tends to make me roll my eyes a bit.

Plus, we need men to also get their heads about it, and get the problem, even if its for women to do the hard work and fight it.

'Sex is not gender' is much more neutral, and the phrase immediately starts as a point as to question why gender is replacing sex and draws people in that way.

How about this as a start for a cross party campaign:

Sex is not gender

1. We are concerned about the replacement of 'sex' as a characteristic in every field of British life with 'gender'.

The replacement of sex with gender is against the Equality Act as sex is a protected characteristic

The conflation of the two characteristics a threat to women's protected status under law by its erasure. Sex must not be replaced on documentation and in institutional process. It must not be eliminated in research and science. It must not be dismissed as irrelevant in record keeping.

Even if sex is retained as a stated protected characteristic in law, it is worthless in practice if gender replaces sex on a day to day practical level. We need the status of sex as protected characteristic taken seriously and not undermined by this trend.

2. We are not opposed to Trans Gender Rights.

We support the trans community and their right to live a life without being discriminated against on the basis of them being trans.

Trans rights are compatible with women's rights, but there needs to be a recognition of how and why women face discrimination and why they also need protection in law. The need to balance the interests of both groups is essential to the upholding of the rights of both.

Undermining the rights of women, undermines the principle of rights and endangers ALL rights. It sets a precedent that rights can be removed by political pressure.

3. We must always cater to the most vulnerable in our society regardless of sex, gender, race, religion, class or sexual orientation first.

Safeguarding of the most vulnerable is essential to the principle of how rights protect us.

We do not feel that Women and Equalities report commissioned by Maria Miller was sufficiently representative of this and did not consult with many groups with a particular vested interest in reform of the GRA and how this will affect them in practice. At its heart it was profoundly undemocratic and pandered to those who shouted loudest rather than also considering more marginalised voices.

Privilege does not align itself equally along sex nor gender lines.

We therefore refute and dismiss the idea and concept of 'cis privilege' as a purely political device which has the potential to undermine the effective management of safeguarding practices.

We seek a review into the report which consults with women and trans groups which were excluded from the initial consultation. We urge Amber Rudd to review the situation as soon as possible.

4) We support and encourage exploration of gender based health issues on an evidenced based approach.

We are concerned that current science and research in the area is fundamentally lacking and important decisions are being made in the absence of this.

What little research that does exist is fundamentally flawed and has large gaps in knowledge. This is leading to it being misrepresented or worst still used as propaganda in this vacuum.

We are concerned that trans lobby groups are using this as a way to dominate policy in public bodies and institutions rather than them working from a neutral position which takes account of the needs of all individuals rather than simply the interests of a singular group.

5) We are concerned about the promotion of medical intervention without medical assessment

Consent and medical ethics are essential to prevent harm and abuse

The promotion of hormones, surgery and other bodily interventions, is contrary to these principles and is potentially dangerous in its own right, particularly to young people. Such discussions should be restricted to doctors and patients on an individual level, and should not be politicised. Anyone encouraging individuals to bypass this gatekeeping should be barred from advisory roles to public bodies or institutions as it is contrary to the principles of medical ethics.

We are aware that there are concerns and reservations by trans people about this gatekeeping, but feel that reform of treatment in this area is needed rather than removal of gatekeeping. We support seeking ways in which this can be promoted and improved.

6) We seek ways in which same sex based spaces can be maintained and supported, particularly for vulnerable groups

We seek the establishment of services which cater for the trans community in partnership with women, rather than merely absorbing trans people into them.

We are not looking to actively exclude trans individuals, but recognise that at times the needs of some individuals mean their presence is simply incompatible with the best interests of those women who are most vulnerable.

We seek the respect and acknowledgement of this need and a clarification in law on how this can be stated in a fair and legitimate way, without the need for groups or individuals having to seek a legal ruling (and the financial burden this entails) to protect themselves from accusations of transphobia.

I think every thing else dovetails from those points.

Looks good Red but what about the legal fiction of 'sex change'?

It is the crux of the matter.

It falls under replacing sex with gender guardianlions.

If documentation replaces sex with gender then it is problematic.

We have to assert the point that sex and gender are two different things, and perhaps we do need to record both for different purposes not merely erase one in favour of the other.

There is only one document where I do feel there is perhaps a legitimate need to use gender rather than sex and that is on a passport because of the law and jurisdiction of our law.

But on a birth certificate? No. Just no.

There are times when sex is undeniably more relevant than gender and other times when gender might be considered more relevant to the situation.

I like this RedToothBrush
I particularly agree that we need to take men with us. Not centring men but ensuring that they are alongside as they also have a lot to lose, both as parents if their children are confused, gaslighted, persuaded into early medication and also because society functions best when our laws and systems are based on facts and an ethical standpoint. The identity of men and women is a cornerstone of this.

Your endless opinions about what I should or shouldn't do are wasted on me. Really. Your opinions of my behaviour are worth less than me to the dust on my shoe. I know who I am, what I believe and what I aim to achieve.

My suggestion is to quit whinging about how OTHER PEOPLE do their activism, get off your backsides and organise.

This sour bleating is not activism, this is not what organisation looks like. Get visible. Get active. Get your shit together.

With respect Jennifer, if you can't work out WHY some women here CAN'T do that, it is spectacular in its irony.

People are talking about this in good faith. Know your enemy, and don't slap the face of your ally.

Jennifer, did you actually bother to read the countless, informed critiques of your initial post & positioning?

This sour bleating is not activism, this is not what organisation looks like. Get visible. Get active. Get your shit together.

Ive just done the biggest eye roll at this.

You do realise you're not the only one 'doing activism', surely?!

Perhaps point one could be changed to make it more explicit.

Sex is not gender

1) We are concerned about the replacement of 'sex' as a characteristic in every field of British life with 'gender'.

The replacement of sex with gender is against the Equality Act as sex is a protected characteristic

"Sex is biological and describes the reproductive bodies into which we are born, it is fixed. Gender is cultural and describes the sex-roles and stereotypes attributed to either sex and is subject to change." The conflation of the two characteristics a threat to women's protected status under law by its erasure. Sex must not be replaced on documentation and in institutional process. It must not be eliminated in research and science. It must not be dismissed as irrelevant in record keeping.

Even if sex is retained as a stated protected characteristic in law, it is worthless in practice if gender replaces sex on a day to day practical level. We need the status of sex as protected characteristic taken seriously and not undermined by this trend.

Not perfect wording, but I think it needs to be in there.

FWIW, despite your attacks, I don't think it will deter women here over the issue, but you are certainly doing a good attempt of shooting YOURSELF in the foot.

Your opinions of my behaviour are worth less than me to the dust on my shoe

Yet you were more than happy to chum up and solicit our "worth less than dust" money?

Oh please. There are so many people off topic here it is laughable and very insulting to those taking it seriously. This is not about me or Venice or anyone else or what colour someone's hair is, these are ridiculous distractions.

Stick to the points. Come up with solutions we can all get behind. Anything else is bs.

Guardian fair comment, yes I think you are right.

It does need to be worked on to make something that can be presented as fair yet gets to the heart of the matter and in a way that as many people as possible can agree with.

Its not going to be perfect, and not everyone will agree with everything, but if you can get a few basic principles from which individual issues then stem from and people can go their own ways with their activism / political affiliation, then it will add a massive strength to all who are trying to get critical thought back on the table.

ie: create the foundations of a broad consensus.

Your opinions of my behaviour are worth less than me to the dust on my shoe. I know who I am, what I believe and what I aim to achieve.

Fine. I'm getting an increasingly clear view of who you are too.

This sour bleating is not activism, this is not what organisation looks like. Get visible. Get active. Get your shit together.

You don't have the faintest idea what any women here are already doing, or of the restrictions on some of us. I'm not going to ask for my donation back because I still believe it's worth it, but I am going to carry on with my activism somewhere that isn't this thread.