Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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:
JenniferJames · 15/02/2018 16:49

'I think the freedom of speech/freedom of assembly is something that stirs the blood of every politician and every journalist of every mainstream persuasion.'

In some ways the tanis wolf attack hearing could not have come at a better time. We are just getting this into the mainstream. Let's push to make it the biggest story it can be. Push it so that MPs MUST break cover and say what they think.

Got to go now, will check back later MM xxx

OP posts:
OrderOnline · 15/02/2018 16:50

We are murdered just like girls are in the uterus. You are throwing the disabled under the bus as men are doing to you. Just like buggy owners Chuck us off the bus.

FaithHopeCharityDesperation · 15/02/2018 16:50

lol I don't take any shit and that's never going to change. sorry.

There's 'not taking any shit' & there's 'not being an arsehole' the two are not mutually exclusive.

mirialis · 15/02/2018 16:51

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

Do we need to pitch it really nicely out of concern for everyone? Say, if you look at this 90 second clip (starts at 17:45).

This poor transwoman needed a third space option not just for their sake but for everyone else's - there was avoidable confrontation, confusion and embarrassment. One approach would seem to be the introduction of self ID but in fact that would lead to facilities essentially becoming unisex and this would lead to a far greater level of upset and confusion for many people, child and adult, male and female, so the move should be provision of a male, female and unisex facility as standard rather than a move to self ID for everyone’s well-being, particularly transpeople.

OrderOnline · 15/02/2018 16:52

We don't want men in our disabled spaces either, please consider us in you policy making.

Patodp · 15/02/2018 16:52

Get in touch with WPUK, Fair Play and Mayday 4 Women

And those at Transgendertrend?

averylongtimeago · 15/02/2018 16:52

Order I wasn't talking about disabled toilets.

OrderOnline · 15/02/2018 16:53

That's what happens that's the existing third space it's taken over by all and sundry, you don't specify or notice because of your privilege.

GuardianLions · 15/02/2018 16:53

OrderOnline I am not quite up to speed with the thread - but my big fear is that the 'access' movement is the next one that will be landed on and eaten from the inside out, after the LGB and Feminism.

We have to be really careful in our wording and our demands that we don't chuck disabled people under the bus.

TerfyMcTerface · 15/02/2018 16:54

Your stance on here has been incredibly divisive, Jennifer. The strength of the discussions on these boards, and the reason why they are starting to come to the notice of the media, is that they unite women across the political spectrum. If this turns into a Corbynista project, it will diminish the strength of our voices, and make them easier for the press to caricature.

I am afraid that you are a loose canon and will ultimately do harm than good to our cause. Sorry.

OrderOnline · 15/02/2018 16:55

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

GuardianLions · 15/02/2018 16:55

How about 4th Wave Now?

TheUterati · 15/02/2018 16:55

Yes - Transgendertrend too.

This all feels like reinventing the wheel and discovering things from first principles.

There is context and history here, and JJ needs to catch up on her own thinking and understanding by reading what is already out there (including on MN threads) as well as positioning her own campaigning intentions within the context of what is already being done.

Patodp · 15/02/2018 16:56

Celebrating gender non-conforming men and women is what's missing.

The Trans perspective being anyone gender non-conforming must be "trans" which is then followed with pronoun changes, name change, "living as a woman/man" and drugs and surgery.

Whatever happened to breaking down sex based stereotypes? This is what needs to be promoted.

Patodp · 15/02/2018 16:59

Someone ask Grayson Perry what he thinks.

GuardianLions · 15/02/2018 17:01

We have been under attack the whole time, it's why I joined in with the whole Maria Miller thing.

All I've known about is by inference - that 'third space' is going to mean 'disabled loos' unless very explicitly stated and demand that it is in addition to single sex and disabled loos.

I'm sure there's a lot more you can say.

Would you be able to summarise the other ways that has the trans thing been impinging upon disabled people?

Patodp · 15/02/2018 17:01

orderonline

So we don't want a third space for Transgender, that's taken.

Transgender people need a fourth space. This is what we need to demand.

OrderOnline · 15/02/2018 17:02

I vote for beyond if willing, to speak for me.

GuardianLions · 15/02/2018 17:02

Oh and of course the right to have a same sex carer or sex segregated hospital ward.

OrderOnline · 15/02/2018 17:02

Thank you, yes a fourth space for the trans community.

mirialis · 15/02/2018 17:04

We don't want men in our disabled spaces either, please consider us in you policy making

Yes - in that clip the rather poor transwoman is told to use the disabled space and that is exactly why I think the push needs to be for a third 'unisex' space because we wouldn't want to treat "trans" as a disability would we?

OrderOnline · 15/02/2018 17:04

They are sterilising disabled children due to their religion. They are psychologically abusing disabled adults and children.

AttillaThePun · 15/02/2018 17:06

Yup, AWS are time-limited to 2030, having been extended from 2015.

From the House of Commons Library:

"the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002...allowed political parties to draw up all-women shortlists of candidates for elections. The Act included a “sunset clause” – the Act would have expired at the end of 2015, unless extended.

The Equality Act 2010 extended the period in which all-women shortlists may be used until 2030."

AWS are discriminatory because they don't allow men, so they are a specific exemption to equality laws based on the fact that women's representation in Parliament was so poor. The idea being, by 2030 representation will be equal enough that we won't need to positively discriminate any more.

Here's hoping?

OrderOnline · 15/02/2018 17:06

Transwomen or trans identified males have different experience and needs of women they have different needs and experience of disabled women.

GuardianLions · 15/02/2018 17:07

They are sterilising disabled children due to their religion.
Are you referring to autistic kids?

They are psychologically abusing disabled adults and children.

Are you speaking about gaslighting - or confirming gender dysphoria?