Sarah Ditum on Genderquake. "Genderquake failed. Now for a proper trans debate"

[flowersonthepiano]

Piece in today's Observer by Sarah Ditum.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/13/genderquake-failed-now-for-a-proper-trans-debate

I particularly like the final paragraph "Underneath the celebration of the “genderquake” are hard problems and grievous losses. Is it a triumph for liberalism to suggest to boyish girls they might be male and girlish boys that their true self is female? How can we counter sexism if institutions no longer “see sex”? Only through debates such as the one Channel 4 attempted can such questions begin to be answered; the next attempt needs to be better."

Of course, she's getting lots of 'our existence is not up for debate' grief on Twitter. I doubt her detractors will even read the article, let alone consider the very reasonable points made.

Amazed something like that is in the Guardian.

Ummm... So it is! (in the Guardian). WHat made me think it was in the Observer?

If you are on one website they link to the other, its disconcerting

I especially like this bit;
''In 2016, the women and equalities committee published its trans inquiry report. It recommended moving to gender self-declaration (removing assessment by panel) and replacing “sex” as the protected characteristic under the Equalities Act with “gender identity”.

This has been the whole problem IMO. We keep being dismissed with 'no one wants to erase sex based protections'', but that is precisely what was proposed, and its the outcome a minority still want.

That bit's not quite accurate.

The report recommended moving to a process of self-ID to get a GRC, replacing 'gender reassignment' with 'gender identity' in the EA, and removing the sex based exceptions in the EA where someone has a GRC.

Link to recommendations.

SD is right - however shit it was, the fact this 'debate' happened at all is progress.

Well done Sarah! And a cautious congratulations to the Guardian/Observer for publishing a gender critical article. I may be able to go back there eventually. :)

Whats up with the guardian recently. I mean, its a welcome change, don't get me wrong..but it seems odd. Tide must truly be turning, if even the guardian will post GC pieces.

I can't believe the naivety of people like Ditum, who has been in media for years and knows the prevailing climate with TRA activism and the media mentality, turning up on a programme like this and expecting it to be anything other than a complete set-up.

It didn't fail because it was never meant to be a genuine debate. It was meant to be a ratings grab on a subject that the majority of viewers are really ignorant or misguided about, and will remain so after the genderquake debacle, and in that it succeeded.

It didn't fail because it was never meant to be a genuine debate. It was meant to be a ratings grab on a subject that the majority of viewers are really ignorant or misguided about, and will remain so after the genderquake debacle, and in that it succeeded.

Well, it cracked open the debate wide enough for Ditum to get a GC article published, which would have been unthinkable a few months ago. I’d say it was a success, in that it actually showed that there might be other views on this.

Brilliant article - perfectly pitched.... she is rapidly becoming my hero!

A camel is a horse designed by a committee.

SelfID Law is a camel. Looks better on paper than it does in real life.

I can't believe the naivety of people like Ditum, who has been in media for years and knows the prevailing climate with TRA activism and the media mentality, turning up on a programme like this and expecting it to be anything other than a complete set-up.

She showed up! Bloody hell, the amount of gender critical people who are petrified of speaking up and getting death/rape threats for doing so - she has put her life on the line here. She isn't naive she just knows that someone has to draw the line in the sand. Although there are a fair amount of other women [and men] also braving it out - it is at personal risk to them to do so. I am sure most of them are actually OK in their own lives, they are doing it because they believe in sex based protections for women and girls. She is awesome.

Link to discussion of the debate:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3243464-Channel-4s-Genderquake-Debate-is-heavily-criticised-boycotted-by-prominent-transgender-activists-allies

Gaby Hinsliff's article- also in the Guardian this week:
www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/10/the-gender-recognition-act-is-controversial-can-a-path-to-common-ground-be-found
& discussion about the article:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3244904-Finally-a-balanced-overview-article-in-the-Guardian

Agree that Sarah Ditum is doing a fantastic job atm, and getting a second article in the Guardian in a week that cautiously admits all may not be sunshine and roses with self ID is definite progress.

can't believe the hoops the producers had to jump through to even get that one sided shit show to happen.

I think the concept of debate being violence is the most offensive thing of all to me in this bloody mess.

Link to discussion of Stephen Whittle's briefing paper for some members of the panel:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3249035-Stephen-Whittle-s-blog-on-Genderquake-with-a-detailed-briefing-for-panelists?pg=1

UpstartCrow
I especially like this bit;
''In 2016, the women and equalities committee published its trans inquiry report. It recommended moving to gender self-declaration (removing assessment by panel) and replacing “sex” as the protected characteristic under the Equalities Act with “gender identity”.

This has been the whole problem IMO. We keep being dismissed with 'no one wants to erase sex based protections'', but that is precisely what was proposed, and its the outcome a minority still want.

Except, of course, that isn't "precisely what was proposed" at all !!

What the report really says is
Protection for trans people under the Equality Act 2010 was a huge step forward. However, the terms “gender reassignment” and “transsexual” in the Act are outdated and misleading; and may not cover wider members of the trans community. The protected characteristic should be amended to that of “gender identity”.

So it's not "erasing sex-based protections" at all. It's just suggesting that it might be an idea to reword the Gender Reassignment section.

So that's good, isn't it? Sex discrimination will remain illegal, and the existing protections for women will not be affected.