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'?

The document doesn't have a single citation or link to original source.

This is true, but the fact that the discussion has been quashed makes it difficult.

Because only the right wing press publishes any of these issues, then it will appear that this is not a cross-party issue.

Because official research has been suppressed, it means that there are few peer-reviewed sources.

Because all unofficial sources have been marked and smeared as transphobic cranks.

It is hard to know where to turn..

However, I think links with the website will work and will try to find citations that fit the bill...

Aye.

I am one who initially baulked at segregation ... and prefer same-sex provision or similar....

And support footnotes/references....

Language is important

But most important of all is to DO THIS

Huge thanks!

Aye, thank you

Not sure I go as far as you in this, but I do think that at least a very open debate is needed aboutbwhen and where sex segregation is appropriate. You need references as mentioned and some of the facts are too woolly.. it is not that a women has been assaulted or injured, more is there any evidence of an increase in incidences. Of course it may be that that data is unavailable, so then the document could suggest that efforts are made to assess the impact in practise.

Funnily enough, the women's book group in the library at my town shut down because a "transbian" ruined it by never letting anyone else get a word in.

I know women who do this too - it's exasperating. However, I think the answer to this specific issue is not to ban transwomen but to have a code of conduct for the book group (along the lines of don't be a dick and do let others talk) and for people who can't behave respectfully to be banned.

Aye.

am in fsvour of this BUT I agree with PP who are unhappy about the word 'segregation', I think this needs more thought. Same-sex spaces, services, provision ?
I think that the high stakes examples are very obvious and an easy win (I'm talking about prisons, refuges and also toilets). But I also think that women (and men) should be reassured about wanting to associate in same sex groups for leisure, socialisation etc. I think that the cultural needs of some people are being minimsed here. If your relision or culture mandates you restrict your contact with the opposite sex, and you just feel more comfortable that way, why shouldn't you be able to have a women's fitness class, a men's swimming session or whatever?

Citations, links or footnotes would be good for the "this has already happened" page - sports, prisons, swim guidelines, girl guides etc. Because the main argument against seems to be "this would never happen, no-one would pretend to be trans, and obviously no-one trans would do any of these things).

Aye

Regarding finding reputable sources for citing - I could use a hand if anyone can help in that area? For example, the biology facts - even though they shouldn't, perhaps even those need citation? Can anyone suggest useful medical texts for those? You can PM me so I don't miss them

I read it again with some care, Xulishes, as I thought your point about book groups was a good one, and I'm one of those who's been torn about this for ages.

But nothing in that document says 'all book groups should be single-sex'. I imagine most book groups take both men and women. It says that IF women have specifically chosen to meet without men (or vice versa), they should also be able to say that that excludes males (or females) however they identify.

Some groups may want to be open to 'women and those who identify as women'. Others may want to keep it to biological women.

I think that's (probably) justifiable. Someone's inner identity is not what has the effect on the rest of the group.

Aye

Aye.

Aye with bells on

Long time lurker on the feminist threads, in awe at the knowledge, passion and perseverance. I've learned so much from you wise people about these issues that I now feel able to confidently spread the word to family, friends, colleagues etc ...who are also now waking up to what is going on. Thank you!

Aye

Aye...but maybe with a rethink of segregation into separation..segregation to me has a hint of being more compulsory than separation...

Aye!

Aye!
I can't help but wonder about these people who declare so emphatically that women saying no to men is hate speech.

Aye aye

How about this as a reference for GirlGuiding UK's policy on it not being good practice to inform other members that a trans girl might be sharing their accommodation:

www.girlguiding.org.uk/making-guiding-happen/running-your-unit/including-all/lgbt-members/supporting-trans-members/

Aye

The problem with 'provision' though, is that it excludes the right to have an informal women-only book-group or similar.

Also, 'separation' to me has quite strong connotations too- eg- Catholics and Protestants

Aye