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'?

Aye

Aye

Aye

Aye

Aye

I agree I prefer single sex to sex segregation. Eg. Single sex schools are never called sex segregated school. Segregation does have connotations of racial segregation, and given we are already called bigots we don't want to add fuel to that fire.

Aye.
And I would include two other points in this
Men accessing women’s shortlists for women protected roles
And
The possible skewing of data for population planning, particularly health planning. How can the powers that be plan a service for either sex if there is no definitive numbers of men/women?

Aye

Aye.
A brilliant job. Well done to those who drafted it.

Aye

Oh yes to mummysmummy's two points.... The data one especially because of crime statistics obscuring the root problem of male violence.

And THANK YOU for bringing us hope

And my DH says AYE too!
I suspect most men would support this, to protect their partners and daughters.

In theory it's an aye from me, but I'm conflicted about some of the document.

I wholeheartedly agree with separation of sexes in sport (where being biologically male gives an advantage), in prisons, refuges, rape crisis centres etc, because these are places where women would be disadvantaged and vulnerable, therefore it's essential that sex is recognised above gender.

When it comes to hairdressers', barbers', bars and things, I disagree. When going for a haircut you're not necessarily in a vulnerable position, and at that point you have a clear choice (eg, in my small town there are nearly 20 local hairdressers), and it's not something that's necessary during a traumatic event like having to be admitted to a mental hospital or have need for a rape centre.
I worry that inclusion of these things rather loses the point of the document.
Anyone with sense can see (or should see) why sex segregation in certain circumstances is vital, but taking it beyond those essentials will, I fear, dilute the message and put many people off.

So I'm not a no, but on the basis of the document as a whole, I'm not an aye either.

I've worded that badly.
In cases of going to have your hair cut or going out, you are in a position of being able to pick and choose where you go, who you go with etc.
If you have to visit a rape crisis centre, or have a smear test, or go into a women's refuge, you are vulnerable and have less free choice over where you go or who you see. Being able to choose a female nurse/therapist etc should be of primary importance.

Aye

Aye

In cases of going to have your hair cut or going out, you are in a position of being able to pick and choose where you go, who you go with etc.

A spa in Canada that offered intimate massages came under sustained attack by TRAs for saying this service was single sex. That's the point. The TRAs felt the spa's staff should be obliged to offer treatments involving nudity to the ladypeen bearers - the same ladypeen bearers who think it is completely normal to become aroused when you see someone attractive in a changing room (actually seen on Twitter this week).

That's the point.

I didn't know that Lang.

I wonder if others reading would know that, because if you read it as I did, imagining having a haircut, it does read as a bit extreme.

I can't get the link to post, but have you seen the huffington post this morning?

Sorry slightly off thread

This

@JoytheUnicorn: www.starobserver.com.au/news/salon-that-refused-trans-woman-waxing-stands-by-its-decision/151326

This is gaslighting. Someone with male genitalia cannot have a brazilian as it is, as I'm sure you know, waxing the labia. And again, training and education is cited as the best way of dealing with women's refusal to take part in pretending that a cock and balls is actually female genitalia because the penis owner says it is.

I wonder if others reading would know that, because if you read it as I did, imagining having a haircut, it does read as a bit extreme.

Perhaps waxing would be a better example?

Should you expect a female staffer if you go to a spa for intimate waxing?

Should staffers at a women's spa be forced by law to perform intimate waxing on an intact "transbian"?

Aye! Thank you for doing such important an important thing.

Aye!