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

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Dealing with inflammatory posts re Trans on MN

835 replies

womanformallyknownaswoman · 07/04/2018 17:37

I am concerned to see the message below from MNHQ at the end of the T thread. Regarding posts that I consider "goady", I have a personal policy of not feeding them, not engaging and not rising to the bait. I ignore them. OPs looking for conflict as a way to feed themselves won't get it from me. Firstly, it's exhausting-they are not interested in dialogue, despite what they say, and secondly the best way to deal with them, imo, is to starve them of attention and not rise to the bait. Don't give them what they want i.e. a fight and conflict.

My concern is I predict there will be a lot more new threads and OPs looking for a fight, as the public becomes more aware of the issues and the tide starts to turn against TRAs. They will want to try and get this Place closed down for discussion, and none of us want that to happen.

Personally I have found it empowering to learn how not to engage and to turn it back on them if absolutely necessary, by the use of ridicule and short rebuttals of their nonsense. I am happy to share some techniques if it will help plus learn more from others. There's no point in trying to score points and win all the arguments they make as it's the engagement down their rabbit holes they want - they literally feed off conflict. They're anti-social remember, so any attention is better than none. They want to keep you coming back and arguing, so they can derail, prolong, provoke and generally make life difficult for MNHQ - to force them to take action. The negative attention "turns on" those looking for a fight….so please don't feed them, ignore them and lets keep this place open.

Message for MN:

Hi all

Since this thread is getting near its end, this seems like a good moment to make a really serious point.

We've just made some more deletions on this thread, and we're pretty exasperated tbh - we feel we're running out of ways to say 'please stick within the TGs or risk losing MN as a place to discuss this issue.'

We're really proud of our commitment to free speech, and we put a huge amount of time and resources to enabling this debate to take place - as many of you have pointed out, it's one of the few places left.

To those who haven't yet been able to stop and look at things from our end of the barrel - please understand that you're risking this space for everyone; if you really can't debate civilly with those you disagree with, it might be time to consider that MN is no longer the place for you. We're sorry to have to say this - we don't like it one bit - but tbh nothing else seems to have got through so far: we're at a point of last resort.

Thanks to all those who modify their first instincts and manage to make their points in a calm, considered and civilised manner - even in the face of goadiness. We appreciate it (and so would Michelle.)

Thanks all

MNHQ

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
MsBeaujangles · 10/04/2018 18:48

bewilderness I am not sure I understand your point.

My take isn't that the EA comes from a place where women and girl's safety, privacy, and dignity, is negotiable. I think the 'proportionate and legitimate' aspect is to do with the context that surrounds the rationale for making a provision same-sex/ whether it being same-sex is likely to have a baring on privacy and dignity.

So, a same-sex knitting group that meets to knit hats for prem babies - it might be hard to argue that same-sex provision is proportionate and legitimate.
Spaces where sexed bodies come in to play - accommodation, changing facilities, crisis centres - not hard to make a case for sexed-bodies mattering.
I really don't buy in to the narrative/propoganda that same-sex provision is difficult to defend. I am longing for some test cases to disprove this

MsBeaujangles · 10/04/2018 18:54

The proportionate and legitimate part protects women in many respects. It stops men being able to exclude women from spaces and activities that would benefit them, just on the basis of them being women.
It also ensures that where an organisation does provide a same-sex facility, the female facility is equally as good as the males.
The EA can do a lot for females and helps us out in many respects. We just need to make sure that it is applied properly and mistruths about it aren't spread to encourage companies to deny females their entitlements.

merrymouse · 10/04/2018 18:58

I really don't buy in to the narrative/propoganda that same-sex provision is difficult to defend.

You can only defend it if people are prepared to offer it, and most organisations, commercial or otherwise aren't enthusiastic about going to court.

There is just complete confusion at the moment, which is one of the reasons we need to be able to talk and use words that have meaning.

thebewilderness · 10/04/2018 18:59

I understand the intent. The way it is written has given rise to the application which is that there are very few, nearly none for women.
Man Friday showed us that the provision is promptly implemented to protect men the moment they are challenged but not women.

thebewilderness · 10/04/2018 19:02

My apologies for being unclear. The intent and application are miles apart demonstrating that it is being used as a tool for sex discrimination.

Ereshkigal · 10/04/2018 19:04

That's the thing. It would likely have to be a woman who brought a case. But that's not the way the law is framed. AWS is the obvious choice because it is a clear discrimination issue involving potential misuse of the single sex exemption.

R0wantrees · 10/04/2018 19:12

the threat of legal action up to now has been used conversely to challenge single-sex provisions...

thebewilderness · 10/04/2018 20:49

The combination of the GRA and the EA have essentially created a class of people who are more equal than other people. The Self ID amendments will make it possible to identify into that class.
I do not know whether these are intended or unintended consequences.

Ereshkigal · 10/04/2018 21:52

Spot on with that analysis. I think a combination of both. Misogyny/sexism playing into both.

Ereshkigal · 10/04/2018 21:54

Sorry that is such a good way of framing it it deserves 👏

thebewilderness · 10/04/2018 22:09

I suppose they were throwing a sop to transgender identified females who have no desire whatsoever to shower with males when they said the transgender person can use whichever facility they choose.
Again the intent and the unintended consequences.

Sue0001 · 10/04/2018 23:06

Extract from the Services and Public Function Equalities Act Code of Practice for Gender Reassignment

Gender reassignment

What the Act says

2.17

The Act defines gender reassignment as a protected characteristic. People who are proposing to undergo, are undergoing or have undergone a process (or part of a process) to reassign their sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

s.7(1)

2.18

A reference to a transsexual person is a reference to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

s.7(2)

2.19

Under the Act ‘gender reassignment’ is a personal process (that is, moving away from one’s birth sex to the preferred gender), rather than a medical process.

2.20

The reassignment of a person’s sex may be proposed but never gone through; the person may be in the process of reassigning their sex ; or the process may have happened previously. It may include undergoing the medical gender reassignment treatments, but it does not require someone to undergo medical treatment in order to be protected.

Example: A person who was born physically female decides to spend the rest of his life as a man. He starts and continues to live as a man. He decides not to seek medical advice as he successfully passes as a man without the need for any medical intervention. He would be protected as someone who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

2.21

This broad, non-medical definition is particularly important for gender variant children: although some children do reassign their gender while at school, there are others who are too young to make such a decision. Nevertheless they may have begun a personal process of changing their gender identity and be moving away from their birth sex. Manifestations of that personal process, such as mode of dress, indicate that a process is in place and they will be protected by the Act.

2.22

The Act requires that a person should have at least proposed to undergo gender reassignment. It does not require such a proposal to be irrevocable. People who start the gender reassignment process but then decide to stop still have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

2.23

Example: A person born physically male tells her friends she intends to reassign her sex . She attends counselling sessions to start the process. However, she decides to go no further. She is protected under the law because she has undergone part of the process of reassigning her sex .

2.24

Protection is provided where, as part of the process of reassigning their sex, someone is driven by their gender identity to cross-dress, but not where someone chooses to cross-dress for some other reason.

Example: Before going to a party in a local hotel, a guest lets it be known that he intends to come dressed as a woman for a laugh. However, the management says he cannot attend the event dressed as a woman as it would create a bad image for the business if there was bad behaviour on the premises.

The management also tells a transsexual woman that she can’t come dressed as a woman as they don’t feel comfortable with the idea, notwithstanding the fact that they know she has been living as a woman for several years.

The guest would not have a claim for discrimination because he does not intend to undergo gender reassignment and because the reason he is told not to come dressed as a woman relates to the management’s concern that overly boisterous behaviour would give a bad impression of the business, not because they think he is a transsexual person.

The transsexual woman would have a claim as the reason for the less favourable treatment was because of her protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

2.25

Where an individual has been diagnosed as having ‘Gender Dysphoria’ or ‘Gender Identity Disorder’ and the condition has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, they will also be protected under the disability discrimination provisions of the Act (see Chapters 6 and 7).

AnitaLovesVictor · 10/04/2018 23:12

That makes my eyes hurt, Sue. What was the point you wanted to make?

merrymouse · 10/04/2018 23:12

Example: Before going to a party in a local hotel, a guest lets it be known that he intends to come dressed as a woman for a laugh. However, the management says he cannot attend the event dressed as a woman as it would create a bad image for the business if there was bad behaviour on the premises.

This mystifies me.

What if a man just wants to wear a dress?

flowersonthepiano · 10/04/2018 23:16

Sue WAWAG?

AngryAttackKittens · 10/04/2018 23:32

So wait, does this render crossdressing in people who don't claim to have gender identity issues illegal? Or just make it easier for businesses to ban people doing so? Are fancy dresses parties going to be banned?

AngryAttackKittens · 10/04/2018 23:32

(in reference to the bit merrymouse pulled out)

flowersonthepiano · 10/04/2018 23:35

merrymouse Yes? And who'd give a shit? Noone round here as far as I can see. I think maybe sue might be better off trying to educate people who have a problem with those that don't conform with gender stereotypes.

Juzza12 · 10/04/2018 23:36

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

flowersonthepiano · 10/04/2018 23:38

angry that's a point. I'd better dig those two dresses i own out of the cupboard, or I might get arrested for being gender non-conforming without intending to live as the opposite sex Shock

AngryAttackKittens · 10/04/2018 23:39

Exciting alternate suggestion! We let everyone wear what they like and don't create categories of people who're allowed to wear dresses (or whatever) and categories of people who aren't.

AngryAttackKittens · 10/04/2018 23:42

Not that I'm a fan of those sorts of events, but consider the Bridget Jones style "vicars and tarts" party. If I come dressed as a vicar should I be asked to leave because I'm actually an atheist?

This is all getting a bit silly. Again I forward the apparently radical suggestion that everyone be allowed to dress as they please provided that the swimsuit areas are covered in public.

OldCrone · 10/04/2018 23:46

What if a man just wants to wear a dress?

If someone obviously male turned up in a dress how would they know whether he was

A man who identifies as a woman (and has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment)
or
A man who was wearing a dress just for a laugh
or
A man who likes wearing dresses ?

AornisHades · 11/04/2018 00:08

OldCrone you ask and wait to see if you're arrested or your business suffers a TwitterStorm of ruination.

Sue0001 · 11/04/2018 00:18

“There are just over 15,000 people who are gender identity patients in the UK – roughly 12,700 adults and 2,700 adolescents or children. Trans activists suggest this is the tip of the iceberg and that there could be tens of thousands more considering medical intervention – hormones or surgery – a demand the NHS would certainly struggle to meet.

Counting the exact number of trans people in the UK is difficult. Previous estimates were based on those who changed their passports or who were granted gender recognition certificates (5,714 as of 31 December 2015).“

Swipe left for the next trending thread