Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Oxford human rights hub

11 replies

dorade · 12/03/2018 19:47

This is being shared on twitter. Can those more knowledgeable than me critique it?

ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/gender-recognition-self-determination-and-segregated-space/

OP posts:
Mouthtrousersafrocknowandthen · 12/03/2018 19:59

It's two trans people on self ID. All they say is that objectors are objecting only on the basis of abuse (not true) and that abuse is worse in places where self ID is introduced (also not true).

And that are allowed everywhere already if that's want they want so its ok.

More of the same really, shut up women we are not asking you.

Mouthtrousersafrocknowandthen · 12/03/2018 20:00

No worse I meant! Sorry.

Kneedeepinunicorns · 12/03/2018 20:01

The basic argument it puts forward:

  1. No one EVER ever ever abuses self ID in order to abuse women. AKA the Jolly Good Chaps principle.

That's plain not true. Evidence abounds.

  1. People who are going to abuse women are going to do it anyway, so what right have women got to worry about it? If women get abused and attacked they have recourse to law so that's fine.

answer - people determined to burgle your house will probably persist and burgle it. Would you agree to leave your door unlocked? You can always turn to the police afterwards. Or do you think if a crime issue is a problem we probably ought to not open the flood gates to making it worse?

What's the prosecution rate for sexual assault/rape? 1-4% of rapists actually end up in prison, so legal recourse for women is dire. If a woman is harassed in a bathroom no police are going to come rushing with blue lights flashing, that woman is on her own. So no, no legal help coming. And any woman could explain that a creepy man can be extremely harassing and threatening without actually doing anything illegal. Women have rights too, and not to be exposed to creeps in private and intimate spaces is one of them.

Basically to purport this stuff, you have the primary belief that women's privacy, consent and feelings is absolutely of no importance and a very low second to the feelings of the people seeking self ID. Which kind of shows why its a lousy idea from the start.

  1. This Is Not About Fecking Bathrooms.

It's about a whole list of things to do with removing rights, legal recognition of and language of women, the bathroom issue is one tiny red herring.

Kneedeepinunicorns · 12/03/2018 20:03

Oh and the whole tone of the article 'others' the crap out of biological women.

Kneedeepinunicorns · 12/03/2018 20:06

Also interesting that it's seeking the furthering of 'useful legal progress' for (some) trans people, but not remotely interested in whether this is equally useful legal progress for women.

Clue: it's not.

newtlover · 12/03/2018 20:21

hmm
have just skimmed this- they quote the Equality Act on gender reassignment talking about 'physiological or other attributes of sex' - what other attributes of sex are there but physiological ones? has anyone properly tested this? Do they think clothing is an attribute of sex? really?

SomeDyke · 12/03/2018 20:21

"Despite the persistent invocation of assault-focused opposition to trans rights, there is little (if any) evidence that cisgender men use those rights to commit crime. "
Actually there is such evidence (although they could be being sneaky and saying that those who claim to be transgender, if they commit crime, aren't then cisgender men commiting the crime...).
Nope, if they claim it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist, obviously!

"While reforming the 2004 Act may not reduce the instance of male-pattern violence, neither would it assist nor encourage the commission of such violence." This is a really sneakysentence again -- if it doesn't reduce it then logically, what are the other alternatives? It either stays the same or increases. They then claim it would neither assist nor encourage an increase, despite evidence that it does (taking changing rooms as an example, and see pattern of offences in the US), or indeed commonsense indicating that it obviously makes it easier! Nope, men who want to offend are obviously too stupid to realise this makes their life easier, and will never notice................

As regards single-sex exceptions (such as no transwomen in rape counselling sessions for example), they claim that "In practice, however, Schedules 3 and 23 are (at least in certain public sectors) rarely applied." Which you could read as -- we have already scared people into believing they can't do this, or shouldn't do this , and even scary Millwall gave in, so give up now laydees and stop objecting!

And a quick skim seems to show no appreciation at all of the issue that women just saying they just don't want penises in female-only spaces is legitimate -- by not even mentioning it, we are not even just dismissed as bigots, but dismissed totally, our 'opinions' are so worthless they don't even need to be mentioned, they just pretend our opinions (and us) just don't exist at all.....................

I just spotted: "while also appreciating that trans women pose no threat in female-only spaces" -- well, we have evidence that some already do plus the bloody obvious that a convicted rapist who then claims they are trans is a threat in a female-only space, and given that we have examples of such, pretending they don't exist is just a big fat lie! Or they are sneakily hiding under the 'they're not true trans, hence it's cismales being the problem again', whilst simultaneously removing any machinery for trying to differentiate between true trans and the liars.....................

Just there is no evidence, your fears are groundless, they are no threat, your objections are wrong, your fears are wrong, it never happens, your opinion and your wants are wrong, you are wrong repeated ad infinitum.

cromeyellow0 · 12/03/2018 22:14

Interesting that one of the authors (Tara) is "Equality, Diversity & Inclusion Lead at Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust".

So I guess that particular NHS Trust won't be using single-sex exemptions enabled by the Equality Act.

dorothyparka · 12/03/2018 22:47

I was expecting more evidence and fewer uncorroborated assertions in an article apparently co-authored by an academic

CircleSquareCircleSquare · 13/03/2018 00:13

crome That Trust (certainly before the name changed) has many members of staff who were very unhappy about the way these kinds of issues were being handled. In particular senior medical staff being pulled up by med students and FY1 doctors for asking “biologically insensitive” questions.
As far as I know no official complaints have been made but I know a number of staff there who feel set upon and watched by their team.

cromeyellow0 · 14/03/2018 10:43

Interesting, CircleSquareCircleSquare, and disturbing.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page