Biological SEX MATTERS. How many mumsnetters say "aye" to this campaign?

[SexMatters]

This document and campaign called 'Sex Matters' is a collaborative effort by amazing and knowledgeable mumsnetters on a couple of threads in FWR.

To move forward with the campaign, the organisations and individuals approached will need to know who is behind it, and the honest truth, is that mumsnetters have spearheaded it.

That does not mean that other campaigners can't get involved or even take greater ownership of it. But it needs a bio in order to introduce it to people and organisations to get started and I need your consent to describe the campaign this way: 'mumsnetter led' (and maybe even some suggestions for writing a bio on this thread).

So, you amazing gender-critical mumsnetters, do you say 'aye'?

Apologies if this has been covered, but why not the right to choose same sex spaces?

I have not read the full document yet, the title just jumped out at me. Segregated has negative connotations following Apartheit. Women do not, I don’t think, want to be segregated (set apart), they want safe, same sex spaces to enable full participation in society.

Aye.

And to those who are saying it's transphobic, trans is not mentioned once in the document.

So what you are doing is objecting, purely on principle, to women's privacy under certain, necessary circumstances.

So thanks for that.

I agree with the majority of the points raised in the document but the last page throws up some issues for me. I'm all for inclusion and actually believe there is too much sex segregation but I absolutly believe in the choice for woman needing safe spaces.

I have a child with gender dysphoria. She is (as in was born) female and identifies as such and we are working hard to help her accept and embrace the body she was born with (as much as she possibly can anyway). As a family we very much appreciate the general acceptance and open mindedness of the people around us. In fact we rely on it for the sake of our daughters mental health. It's a daily struggle and there are compromises that sometimes have to be made by schools etc. She has encountered abuse in the toilets etc so a unisex toilet has been an absolute saving grace for ours and her piece of mind. I stress that there is only one assigned unisex toilet at the school - the rest are sex specific. I believe this is how it should be.

She goes to Scouts and has had a very different experience to dd1 who went to Brownies. I don't agree that children should be denied the same opportunities as each other to attend the different groups. The girls sleep in a different dorm to the boys when the have overnight camps so no issues there.

My biggest sticking point is the suggestion that people who are allowed access to certain sex specific spaces should be admitted according to their born sex. I for one would feel far more comfortable in a changing room with a post op mtf transwoman than a ftm post op trans man. Trans men may not have the Y chromosome but they have the strength, appearance and as much testosterone in their system as a cis man. It's unlikely they would choose to use a female changing room but they would certainly qualify. I do believe that a trans woman is a woman and a trans man is a man so given these specified guidelines I can't agree wholeheartedly with the document.

Aye.

Sex is a protected characteristic. We have to be able to talk about it to protect it.

Aye

‘Girls tend to do better in single sex education’

Whoa. Many of us have fought hard to be taken seriously and on equal terms in education/work/life.

Please do not use the TRA row to undermine that. Girls and boys can go to school together fine, thanks.

Aye

Aye

Aye.

Aye

Aye.

ButteredScone

Please don't derail the thread
The point is girls should have the right to choose.

girls better same sex boys better mixed ed

Aye

Aye

Of course an aye from me.

I do not see a problem with accepting trans people having the same rights to live, present and dress as they wish or to have the same rights in employment, housing etc.
However, there are some places and times where biological sex matters, rather that "gender".

Aye

Absolutely Aye.

It should be noted that absolutely nothing in this document is critical of or seeks to prevent any person from adopting the clothing, hairstyling, personal grooming, naming and pronouns that usually pertain to the opposite sex if they so choose. This is not anti-trans.

FlamingGalar - I remember Alf

My biggest sticking point is the suggestion that people who are allowed access to certain sex specific spaces should be admitted according to their born sex. I for one would feel far more comfortable in a changing room with a post op mtf transwoman than a ftm post op trans man. Trans men may not have the Y chromosome but they have the strength, appearance and as much testosterone in their system as a cis man. It's unlikely they would choose to use a female changing room but they would certainly qualify. I do believe that a trans woman is a woman and a trans man is a man so given these specified guidelines I can't agree wholeheartedly with the document.

It is a tricky one. I personally would feel more comfortable with at 5'4" TIF with female bone structure and socialisation, than a 6'2" TIM with broad shoulders, strong core/ upper body strength and male socialisation, but hopefully a range of options would suit everyone. If I was unnerved by someone looking male in a segregated space and they sensed my discomfort and said "I was born female", I would be relieved and I am pretty sure I could sense that what they said was true, by their manner.

There is also the question of TIFs on male hormones and where they fit into sports - because they are chromosomally disadvantaged, but advantaged by synthetic hormones at the same time. So perhaps there needs to be new categories specific to sports to allow TIFs and TIMs to compete fairly. But that is a different campaign and a bit of a side issue.

The right to, is not the same as a personal choice not to.

No one is forcing single sex education here, just saying that we should have the right to have it, if we so choose.

If we don't defend the protection of sex as a characteristic, then we lose rights in areas which are crucially important to many.

So Aye from me, though I would never dream of using single sex education. I recognise the reasons that others have for wanting that (although I also recognise there are problems with it too. I'd rather tackle that separately as an issue though).

Exactly RedTooth

It is all about choice.

Our right to choose is being eroded.

HangtheblessedDJ I do not think I have hated anyone on mass my whole life. Individuals yes - groups no. You do not know me or my circumstances so just because I have said "Aye" does not make me a mass hater of anyone.

Aye.

Well it's an absolute no from me. Absolutely not the kind of society I want to live in and absolutely not feminism for me.

Christ, I even had to read it twice just to make sense of all the "ayes" - you must be reading something different to me. I believe sex segregation - or any segregation - is ONLY acceptable as a means to achieving safety or equality of opportunity for a disadvantaged or minority group. It is NOT desirable, it's not something people should be allowed to "choose"! Sometimes it is demonstrably necessary or beneficial and in those cases the Equalities Act allows enforceable sex-segregation, or indeed any "discrimination" which can be shown to be a proportionate means to a legitimate end. I say "allows" because this is not generally a good thing! Given that it is already permitted where necessary, I don't think this paper is coming from a good place.

Talking about prisons and women's refuges in the same breath as salons and clubs is gross, in my opinion.

I don't want to bring my daughter up in a world where she believes her sex is so debilitating to her and that men are so different that she might want to choose to be completely apart from them in any given walk of life. That is fucking madness. I want sex segregation to protect her in a male dominated world where it is needed, not to create a nicer, kinder "women's world" for her instead. Fucking fuck's sake.

Apologies if this has been covered, but why not the right to choose same sex spaces?

Although that does sound friendlier, it is because the campaign is broader in its reach than spaces. It includes service provision, institutions and sports leagues and so on.

We did work a bit around 'same-sex' on the other thread but it sounded clunky. I have a feeling though, that other people will get used to hearing the word intended in this way as I have, although it did make me sit up a bit when I first heard it in a feminist context.