Sex-based interests

[MsBeaujangles]

Posted this on another thread but then decided to start a separate thread for those who are interested in joining in:

*Rather than reducing the number of posts about trans issues, perhaps we could move some of the debate on from being about trans people.

Attending to the demands of TRA has served to highlighted just how important single-sex services/spaces/provisions are to many of us. Now we have identified this we could, in some instances, stop centring trans people in the discussion.Our interests exist independently of TRAs. We can focus on what our interests are and what we need to do to protect them. For what it is worth, I think trans people would do well to focus their attentions in the same way.

In mediation, parties are encouraged to articulate their interests, rather than their positions/ideologies/beliefs/solutions etc. It might be a really constructive move for our cause if we begin to do this more.*

Very specific. I have done genetic epidemiological research in the past that used biological samples collected from people with a rare disease over decades, linked to records about them that included information that they had self reported, including sex. If the meaning of male and female changed in that context it could have very serious consequences. From the data we could see that the disease was much more common in males than females, which could have provided clues to its cause. So for me, as a scientist, it is important that the meaning of male and female are clear, based on sex, and not subject to blurring based on gender identities.

More general and personal. For personal care and dignity, I want my mum to have access to same sex wards in hospitals and same sex carers if she needs them, now that she is elderly. And I want the same for myself, if I am lucky enough to get old.

I also worry that it will become less acceptable for girls to behave in boyish ways and vice versa, without becoming pathologised.

I want more women representing me in Parilament, because they have experience of life as a woman and a girl. I won’t always agree with them, but in general they will bring a female perspective to the table.

I think it is, for me, in some ways, saying that all men area threat and perpetuating gender roles, where we want to get rid of gender. Male violence is not a biological destiny, it's a sum of upbringing and made more possible by genetics. Being simply more powerful, be it a man or a large woman trained in martial arts, does not mean they are automatically a threat. To me. More work should be done to educate, care for and safeguard children and young people (of both sexes), so they do not feel they need to attack anyone to feel "better" or "get revenge".

In my country of origin, sex discrimination is certainly less. Not sure about (sexual) violence. I think it has been very good for me to see naked bodies of both males and females of different ages. It helps with body image and self-esteem, and to feel more natural about sex/nakedness. I want to encourage this curtural heritage in my DS (while understand the norms of British culture).

However, I do think that hospitals should probably have separate sex wards due to the extreme vulnerability of most patients. Particularly important in psychiatric hospitals where both males and females, due to their illness(es) can be violent, and males can, generally, inflict more damage. Additionally, I think that violent males and females should be separated from non-violent ones to give all a good chance of recovery in peace. This is pie in the sky with NHS funding, but it is what I believe.

I think it has been very good for me to see naked bodies of both males and females of different ages.

I too have done this. What is being discussed here is when this is appropriate. We are in a position now where we are being expected to accept it is never automatically appropriate or even legal to separate naked bodies, or bodies in any other state. I've been told that by my Labour MP in writng. This is what the government thinks. All political parties espouse this.

In a culture like the British one, if there are separate cubicles in loos and changing spaces, no-one need see anyone's naked body if they don't want to. A leap to having the "wrong bodies" proudly on show in shared naked spaces would be too much. It has to be a small steps. Not a great big stride into "penises don't matter", when they clearly do (particularly in this culture). Maybe in the far future this could be true, but would need generations with of grass roots work on the issues I mentioned above, for all to feel safe, comfortable and happy in shared naked spaces. By this, I don't mean masturbating in these spaces. That would still be inappropriate, but would be less likely.

Confused -would you consider starting a separate thread about all these cultural experiences etc you want to discuss? This thread was created by the op for those of us who have an interest in differentiation by bioogical sex to help us identify which of our interests are at play, and without discussing trans issues. You are taking this in quite a different direction, and others interested in discussing the angles you are picking up might miss the discussion you want to have if it is here rather than under a more appropriately titled thread?

So, you are right in that politicians are jumping ahead with things without having a long term working plan or understanding of the impact. The current politics can have a backlash in further alienating the sexes and perpetuating gender.

Apologies. I think it is all relevant to what is being discussed - sex differences and segregation. It's been a good discussion, but I will leave you to it if you wish. Time to take DS out. He has been on Roblox way too long today!

Sadly there have been many times that male doctors have taken advantage of female patients.

As a result of reading the linked twitter thread, I want basic misogyny and sexual predatation to just stop.

twitter.com/jessicae13eaton/status/900835507487350784?s=21

I think it is, for me, in some ways, saying that all men area threat and perpetuating gender roles, where we want to get rid of gender

This is not directed at you confused as this is something that gets raised a lot but I do find it very tiring when the whole 'it is treating all men as if they are a threat' always gets brought up. It turns a discussion about why women would want same sex spaces into a discussion about the wants, needs and rights of men and NAMALT.

Just because we want same sex spaces is NOT the same as saying we think all men are a threat. I want my breastfeeding group to be women-only because I want to feel comfortable discussing breastfeeding - a female biological issue - with other women who have breastfed and/or women who are versed in the finer details of breastfeeding. There will probably, possibly be other people there who have additional reasons to not want men present, but isn't my reason enough? Why does it always get turned around to be about men?

I've never seen anyone on these boards say all men are a threat. I've seen the statistics for sexual violence, and as so many have said so many times, not all men but yes all women (have been sexually harassed). Look at Weinstein - one man and probably hundreds of alleged victims. It only takes one. But of course now I'm doing what I said I'm tired of - I'm explaining why my desire for same sex spaces isn't an affront to men. I shouldn't have to. Any man who finds my desire for a woman (XX) only breastfeeding group offensive should really find something better to be affronted about (famine, war, brexit, literally anything else) as in actual fact my desire for same sex spaces isn't harming men. (or transwomen for that matter).

And as far as issues that don't relate solely to female biology- as others have said the answer is simple, male, female and unisex.

So much goes back to how ingrained it is in society that women and girls are property. I want to be able to say no and to be heard, not questioned.

One group of women who don't have much of a voice in all this is females in prisons. It's not just their right to freedom of movement that's removed when they're imprisoned - they lose almost all control over their lives. They have little or no power.in their situation and this places them at a huge disadvantage regarding decisions made by others that may disregard their personal boundaries and their rights to safety, privacy and dignity.

Exhausting. I am exhausted by the gaslighting from women that come on and say you are just not being liberal enough, you need to be socialised better. I've been socialised absolutely as the world expected me to be socialised. I share spaces with men in controlled environments, I yacht race, I have done for 35 years and the space to change privately is hugely limited. I'm there voluntarily, there is mutual respect. The law is removing mutual respect and demanding compliance. I will not be forced into compliance with this. I have the right to consent. What a shame Mrs B's thread was yet again derailed by one person insisting that we just all need to get over it. Until someone can justify why all men born in the wrong body are more important than all women born in their own body, I'm not shifting.

Apologies if this has already been covered, but I think we should record sex and gender separately when recording official data, particularly crime and medical outcome data.

From a crime stats point of view, for example, it would enable us to objectively assess eg whether women’s serious offending is increasing. Also, it would enable criminologists and police to identify any differences in patterns of offending towards women and transwomen and whether more targeted, nuanced interventions and legal provisions are required to ensure their safety.

From a medical point of view, it is well known that some drugs are metabolised differently by men and women. For effective drug safety surveillance, we need accurate reporting of patients’ sex. Same goes for other medical interventions. Collection of both (birth) sex and gender would help to evaluate the impact of eg long-term cross sex hormone therapy. Also, as it is not uncommon nowadays for drugs to be purchased online to supplement (or in place of) prescribed/supervised treatments, decent data might more quickly flag up emerging harms in affected populations and allow the causes to be investigated/addressed.

Likewise, in terms of planning services (eg health screening programmes, prisons, hospitals, nursing homes, schools) it would be helpful to be able to identify the size of the differing populations so that their differing needs can be catered for.

Basically, the current lack of clarity is not helping anyone, least of all policy makers and service providers.

Many thanks all. This has been very helpful. It sounds as if some, but not all, of us have some common interests. These are:

For laws and policies to recognise sex (as defined by our sexed bodies/ sexual dimorphism) as a distinct category so we can:

• be afforded dignity and privacy through the provision of same-sex services and spaces (e.g. changing rooms, hospital wards, refuges)
• level the playing field and encourage participation in sport through same-sex competition and training
• be afforded dignity, privacy and support through the organisation of female-only groups (as defined by our sexed bodies) to meet to discuss issues relating to our lives as lived in our sexed bodies
• data collection and analysis used to monitor inequality and changes in society to include the variable 'sex' (as defined by our sexed bodies) in order to illuminate changes and inequalities happening to people with female sexed bodies
• to improve products and services for people with female sexed bodies through designers, inventors and researchers being able to focus on key features of female-sexed bodies, and the experiences that accompany them, where this may improve products and services.

I hope I have captured the main interests shared.

Not everyone will share these interests. Where people don't, it would be productive for them to think about their own interests, rather than just shout these interests down. Should people do this, it may be the case that some of the interests appear to conflict with ours, however, if they are expressed as interests (not positions or objections to the interests of others) this provides a good starting point for thinking about how far we can get in meeting different interests when they are competing interests.

@WiggyPig. Can you see any problems with the lists of interests listed above and existing laws? It would be good to know where our interests are unlikely to be upheld through the application of the EA, GRA and HRA so we can focus our attention on lobbying for any changes we think are necessary.

MsB I suspect this is flying pig territory but I'd love to feel that women could ask for and reasonably expect to get working hours / conditions that actually support breastfeeding during the early baby/toddler years. My experience has been that breastfeeding and working are mutually exclusive (I hate the 'just pump' comment - never have been able to get much out that way). My old job was one that some people did almost entirely from home so I really don't see why it couldn't have been possible. But it seems not to be 'a thing' that you can ask for (yes, you can ask for a space to pump in but not actual working conditions that allow you to feed the baby the normal way e.g. working part-time over 5 days, doing some hours at home). Not in my experience anyway, and I suspect even if some people manage it it's fairly rare.

cupoftea - I think that recognising this as an interest, expressing it as such, and then campaigning/lobbying effectively is worth doing.
Where there are competing interests (I expect employers might have some), if they express them as interests (not positions/ objections to women's expressed interests), some ways forward might be found.
Simple - this can't be done/ this won't work/can't work etc. shuts down any hope of finding potential creative solutions. There may be a way to ensure employers get their interests met, as do breast feeding mothers. What is needed is a proper analysis of the interests of both parties.

ineedacupottea
in turkey mums get nursing leave - she can request breaks up to 1 hour 30 mins a day for feeding a baby up to a year old and its forms part of her working hours - although apparently a lot of mums just save the time up and take an extra day off

I don't think their statutory maternity leave is a good though

This is not sex-based or gender-based, but it is one of the most important things for me about this issue.

I want to be able to talk freely about my physical reality without being told i am excluding someone with different biology. It is important to me to live in a society where I am free to question changes to legislation without threat of being ostracised or physically attacked. I want to be able to take part in political processes freely.

It's as fundamental as that.

Thanks for doing this.

My biggest concern with the steady erosion of of our rights and class name is that science matters, facts matter. To change the definition of woman to include not XX is to skew all facts and conclusions past and present. This is as dangerous and illogical as creationism.

Added to this the intimidation tactics being employed to halt the discussion and we have Government backed gaslighting.

If I am more comfortable discussing my reproductive system with another human who has the same one then that is my right. Removing that right by gaslighting and then making it illegal for any XX patient to question the presence of an XY (or vice versa) is wrong.

Sports are locking us out. Paralympians are classed according to ability to level the playing field as much as possible. By going the other way and removing the XX / XY definition from sports we have already seen that XY will dominate due to physical difference.

XX women are responsible for the continuation of humanity so why is it so appealing to remove our definition all of a sudden? If a new class or three is needed then great, carry on, this one is taken.

I understand that my position on some of these issues is not shared by many here, but as I have said, it is based on my own knowledge and experience. I do not wish to minimise or ridicule other people's opinions and I would hope nobody would dismiss mine, either, as being gaslighting or anything else than my sincere opinion. I can respectfully agree to disagree and often do! There can't ever be one opinion shared by all, as we are all different.

On our similarities, though, I have stated that I want separation between women and trans women, at least on paper (for various important and practical reasons mentioned by PPs), in relevant medical situations and sports, as well as get rid of the scourge of gender (roles) and (particularly, toxic male) violence. My suggested path there is simply different.

On the issue of breastfeeding and work, I am not sure what would be the ideal solution. In my country of origin, maternity/parental leaves are looong and well funded, so it doesn't really happen that much, although it should be facilitated to some extent. There and here. If not pumping, that should probably involve some sort of protected flexi time or part time arrangement. It might be difficult at some workplaces or in some roles, though.

Anyway, thank you for the interesting discussion (my first one on trans/sex related issues on MN)! I will now go back to occasional lurking.

@MsBeaujangles ace thread. The answer to your question is “it depends” but I think it would be worth having a proper look at it and maybe coming up with an advice that could then be shared if useful.

@WiggyPig. Sounds good to me!

I've thought of another thing I'd really like that is specific to female biology. I'd like to be offered more than the contraceptive pill as the only option for menstruation-related and other female biology specific problems (e.g. PCOS).

Posted this elsewhere but it's so good, I'm going to post it again