Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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:
RedToothBrush · 15/02/2018 15:03

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

FFS Jenifer, did you see my post above yours??? What the bloody hell do you THINK I'm trying to do?

Scratch my arse?

GuardianLions · 15/02/2018 15:03

I'm glad you agree Red any vagueness of what sex and gender actually are and which of them is fixed and which can be changed will be abused into absurdity.

TheXXFactor · 15/02/2018 15:04

"Give me some money for my good cause"

"Ok, here you go"

"I'll take your money, but lots of you are fucking imbeciles"

24h later: "I want your help for my good cause"

"OK, but we're not keen on being called fucking imbeciles"

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

Can you see why this might not be a winning strategy?

RedToothBrush · 15/02/2018 15:05

Team Smash The Patriarchy needs Mumsnet input/representation

No! Not that type of input / representation.

Unfuckingbelievable.

AssignedPuuurfectAtBirth · 15/02/2018 15:09

XXFactor
Am genuinely in the twilight zone now.

nauticant · 15/02/2018 15:12

This is starting to look like the Tamsin Sutherland thread but through a weird distorting mirror.

BrendasUmbrella · 15/02/2018 15:13

Jennifer, it really might be for the best if you just ignore posts you feel are off-topic.

For the people who are on board with the general ideas here, but not JJ herself, what/who do you suggest instead?

Theglobe · 15/02/2018 15:15

Brilliant!!! This is comedy gold!! Jennifer James actually makes Donald Trump seem likeable!

JenniferJames · 15/02/2018 15:16

What do we think of the 'third gender' idea? At the moment, the gender neutral spaces are just what was previously women's spaces. Gender neutral hospitals? DV shelters? idk I can't see it but if tra worked for it, could happen?

Re
'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'.'

This is where it all falls down. We cannot have two definitons of woman, one by sex and one by self-id. They are antithetical.

'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.'

Yeah. If self-id goes ahead anyone can apply to an aws or any other female only position/space. All sex based protections lost.

'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.'

I think there is A LOT of people who want to do that anyway 'best person for the job' etc... but it's always a white mc male!

OP posts:
TheUterati · 15/02/2018 15:18

I believe an apology and a little humility are in order JJ

I shall read the lengthy text and comment. There are a couple of RL women (don't know their MN IDs) who I believe you would do well to consult on this. Getting in touch with Fair Play for Women and Girls would be an excellent first step.

My first comment, is please do not say 'trans women' - this implies that trans is a modifier for woman just like any other modifier - Black, Jewish, lesbian, disabled, old, etc. Language matters a great deal here. If you have to use it (and I suppose you do - TIMs is not going to get you very far!) then use 'transwoman'.

GuardianLions · 15/02/2018 15:19

This is starting to look like the Tamsin Sutherland thread but through a weird distorting mirror.

And what do these two threads have in common?

A named individual amongst anonymous posters, who are being a lot more direct, blunt and rude than they would be to someone in real life.

That dynamic never brings out the best in that named person.

Howyoualldoworkme · 15/02/2018 15:21

You know, I tried to persuade Daisy to keep on persevering with this thread but she was right.
It's people like her and me you want to get on side. Ordinary women who are just wakening up to this and hoping to get involved. Not Corbynista handmaidens and people with a wide knowledge of Gender Studies.
Us! Tories, centrists, left of centrists..we're concerned too. We have children, grandchildren, sisters.
Oh and some of us have quite a bit of money too. Well I'm afraid you get no more of it!
It was also me who directed someone here to help get it out in the mainstream so I've really tried to help with this.
You've certainly shown your true colours Jennifer and they're not pretty.

I'm beyond angry now. Apologies to any Mumsnetters I've offended by this. You're all brilliant.

FaithHopeCharityDesperation · 15/02/2018 15:24

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

There are countless solutions & ideas on here.

Perhaps you could engage rather than berate?

TheUterati · 15/02/2018 15:24

A 'third' gender merely reifies gender. This is bad news and will just lead into all sorts of problems.

Gender neutral spaces IN ADDITION to women's only spaces, or e.g. single occupancy self contained toilet facilities would be acceptable to many. But the problem is that this has never been about 'just wanting to pee'. This is about affirming identity. And identity cannot be affirmed when a TIM walks into a single occupancy self-contained toilet that can be used by men or women. Identity can only be affirmed when they walk into a woman's toilet, or access services that are for women only. And despite how they dress it up, it is not about avoiding the threat of violence, it is about hurt feelings. If it was about 'just wanting to pee' then they would have suggested singel occupancy spaces all along. They didn;t. If it was about avoidign the threat of violence they would have set up their own safe spaces. If it was about receiving appropriate healthcare, they woudl have campaigned for trans-health as a speciality. They didn;t do any of this. Because it is about feelings and identity.

JenniferJames · 15/02/2018 15:25

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

Totally... trans people are discriminated against because of gender non conforming behaviour. However their insistence that trans women are women means that they're not going to accept this?

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

Yes. It's a religion, essentially. Faith-based with zero evidence. The problem has become that, unlike religion nowadays, people are being forced by social pressures to pretend they believe it. I have my suspension meeting soon and made it clear that it is my BELIEF that men and women are classified as such by sex alone. Belief is a protected characteristic, in the Labour party and beyond.

'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.'

Yes. It's not legally viable, we're told to challenge the presence of tw on aws, I personally wd prefer biological females only. However we have to recognise, imo, that gender dysphoria is a genuinely debilitating condition and these people need and have a right to healthcare. If ppl with gender disphoria are denied treatment here (hormones? surgery?) they could go abroad and die in botched ops.

OP posts:
FaithHopeCharityDesperation · 15/02/2018 15:31

'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.'
*
Yes. It's not legally viable, we're told to challenge the presence of tw on aws, I personally wd prefer biological females only. However we have to recognise, imo, that gender dysphoria is a genuinely debilitating condition and these people need and have a right to healthcare. If ppl with gender disphoria are denied treatment here (hormones? surgery?) they could go abroad and die in botched ops.*

Why is it not legally viable to support people with gender dysphoria, whilst not adversely impacting women?

Why?

The inclusion of pre-op, self identifying transwomen on AWS has literally nothing to do with access to healthcare & botched ops for people with gender dysphoria.

You need to stop conflating issues as a starting point.

GuardianLions · 15/02/2018 15:31

However we have to recognise, imo, that gender dysphoria is a genuinely debilitating condition and these people need and have a right to healthcare. If ppl with gender disphoria are denied treatment here (hormones? surgery?) they could go abroad and die in botched ops.

It is a psychological condition. Sex change is not physically possible. Operations don't turn males into females. Males should not be legally classed as females just because they have a psychological condition - irrespective of how they 'present', what they believe or what surgical procedures they undergo.

TheUterati · 15/02/2018 15:32

Forget it - just seen some of JJ's other posts. Can't be arsed with this shit.

JJ - When you have specifically asked us to contribute to your activism, both financially and by providing you with our ideas, do you not see that we are entitled to then critique (or as you would have it whinge) the way you are intending to go about said activism?

This is lazy. Very lazy. The board here is an absolute wealth of information and erudite opinions. Perhaps you would be better placed to READ WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY SAID. Get a researcher to do it, if you can't be bothered yourself. Get them to write a report. Summarise that and then put it to us to see if you have understood MN concerns and suggestions accurately.
THIS - where you want us to do all the work for you and then start berating us and being downright bloody rude and arrogant is not the way to go about it.

JenniferJames · 15/02/2018 15:36

'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. .

Yep. I agree a cross party coalition is needed, I don't know how to do that or how it would work.

At the moment we have, in terms of groups pushing back, that I can think of:
Labour party socialist vanguard in the form of ppl like me and Venice (dgaf semi-anarchist left)

Labour party socialists, sensible, getting a broader consensus like A Woman's Place

I don't know what other groups are pushing back. Umbrella organisation needed.

Mumsnet is the perfect place to start it. You have a broad range of views here... I don't know how it would work. You could come up with something that's bigger than left/right and then all the separate groups cd affiliate?

OP posts:
RedToothBrush · 15/02/2018 15:37

I think the fundamental principle of a third space is opposed by many TRAs because they think it very the embodiment of prejudice.

I think the idea in principle is the right way to go, but its a case of how you frame it. And in what context. And to whom.

Which is why safeguarding is one of the key strategies to that. Identify principle on how need is assessed.

And stressing the idea of doing things in parallel and partnership (even if you privately think this bullshit to an extent because of financial considerations and practical implementation) because its about building bridges with liberal feminists who might otherwise see themselves as 'trans allies'. The detail on how you might go about that, comes second anyway.

You need to pitch to men and liberal feminists of all political persuasions even if you campaign only within your own party. Otherwise as I say, you shoot yourself in the foot, by looking unreasonable to the point of crackers. Passion and determination and fire in your belly are fine, but for the love of god focus it!

You are never going to be able to have a discussion with the TRAs because they won't engage yet. Not until the bulk of pressure sees alternative solutions as reasonable.

That's the point. Pitch to the rational and reasonable. You win in Labour on a single issue, you win elsewhere. You win elsewhere on the issue in general and Labour have to listen to you more. There is no internal battle alone. I don't get why you don't see this.

For me that comes down to saying 'hey why isn't the current law being adhered to' which is why you got support across political boundaries for your campaign over AWS.

You question why the law isn't being used and promote why women are vulnerable still.

The fight in its very essence and most basic is about gender replacing sex. Keep returning to that in whatever campaigning you do.

I don't think the law needs to be changed to protect AWS. I think the law is already there. As you rightly pointed out.

What IS the a legal definition of women? If its not about biology then why are BOTH sex and gender referred to currently? Its always about WHY women are underrepresented and thus less able to be political representatives. Do transwomen face these same challenges, or do they have different ones and advantages in other respects? Who is most under represented?

I think you ARE on the right track, but concentrate on the central bits first and know your audience isn't just Labour and YOU NEED outside support. Whether you bloody well like it or not!

JenniferJames · 15/02/2018 15:41

'Why is it not legally viable to support people with gender dysphoria, whilst not adversely impacting women?'

Regarding aws cos we have been told by our lawyers that we are unlikely to win this in court! The gender recognition act insists that men who have transitioned must be treated as female in all respects. If they have a Gender Recognition Certificate then they can apply for a new birth certificate with 'female' on and they become female in law, if not in fact.

OP posts:
DaisyDrip · 15/02/2018 15:42

Us! Tories, centrists, left of centrists..we're concerned too. We have children, grandchildren, sisters.
Oh and some of us have quite a bit of money too. Well I'm afraid you get no more of it!

Exactly! I was never going to say this but in light of the last few posts - damn it! I took a not insubstantial amount of cash from my savings account and put it into my current account to donate to JJ should this go to court. I saw it as part of my inheritance for my daughters and grand-daughters. I've now put it back into my savings account. Not another penny piece will go to this woman.

JenniferJames · 15/02/2018 15:45

I can't get cross party support! I can't even get support in Labour! Half the people in my OWN party hate me and want me expelled. I'm blacklisted, as are other crowdfunder women. Not one senior politician or union rep has stood up for us publicly. You cannot imagine the abuse I have had IN MY OWN CIRCLES and in my OWN CLP. My name is mud and my stock is low. Not that I care because I believe this is the right thing to do. :-)

I'm just doing what I can do... everyone else has to build.

OP posts:
DaisyDrip · 15/02/2018 15:47

*JJ Half the people in my OWN party hate me and want me expelled.

I wonder why!

GuardianLions · 15/02/2018 15:47

Other allies to the cause:

All people who believe in freedom of speech and freedom of assembly
All people who believe in scientific objectivity
All people who believe in the correct use of words, logic, statistics and evidence.

Swipe left for the next trending thread