Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Chestertons Fence

13 replies

justicewomen · 17/06/2018 10:44

This was a new one on me but someone mentioned it on twitter and it fits the current conflict of sex and gender assignment protected characteristics/GRA issues very well. Actually it fits most discussion of "reforms" very well (like removal of protection of workers from 3rd party harassment in the Equality Act under there guise of red tape reforms)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fence

We should campaign that Govt should have to consider and explain this aspect (ie why was this like this in the first place) as part of Impact Assessments

I am going out but will be back later if anyone wants to discuss

OP posts:
UpstartCrow · 17/06/2018 10:47

This has been raised a couple of times by different posters and funnily enough, so far none of the TRA's want to engage.

loveyouradvice · 17/06/2018 18:30

Yup - tis a GREAT approach... just bumping so others read....

MsMcWoodle · 17/06/2018 18:32

Bumping. Really sensible. i can see why some people don't want to engage.

Freespeecher · 17/06/2018 19:15

I like it because it's more than a mere tactic to win an argument. It's an excellent way to stop either yourself or your group making decisions in haste, even if they seem well-intentioned at the time, only to repent at leisure.

CertainHalfDesertedStreets · 17/06/2018 19:55

This has been raised a couple of times by different posters and funnily enough, so far none of the TRA's want to engage.

Well no. I don't suppose they would agree that it was a fence. They'd say it was a pair of moon boots or a blender or something...

SarahAr · 18/06/2018 12:11

On the subject of GRA reform, here are some of the benefits.

Removing the need for evidence of a diagnosis of gender dysphoria helps:

  1. Detransitioners looking to change their legal gender back to their birth gender.

  2. Intersex people looking to change their legal gender to the gender in which they live their lives.

  3. Historic transitioners who perhaps transitioned 30 years ago and now no longer have the medical paperwork.

Removing the spousal veto prevents individual A having a veto over individual B's human rights.

Simplifying the GRA process makes it more accessible to the poor, to the working class, and to those people who struggle with a complicated legal and bureaucratic process.

The current process serves white middle class transgender people only.

DodoPatrol · 18/06/2018 12:16

I think you slightly missed the point there, Sarah, which was that you first need to examine why there was a hurdle to getting a GRC (and also why we have sex segregation in some places).

Some hurdles and restrictions are justified, others less so, but first you need to acknowledge why they were there.

uglyswan · 18/06/2018 12:16

Sarah, I don't think you've understood the concept. Chesterton's Fence refers to the reasons behind the existing state of affairs, i.e. why do sex-segregated spaces, services and communities exist?

SarahAr · 18/06/2018 12:45

DodoPatrol uglyswan good points.

The current system is in place due to widespread transphobia in society. The GRA in 2014 only came about due to court cases and activists were happy to take what they could get. Fourteen years later, in a supposedly more tolerant society, minor reforms to the GRA to bring laws in England and Wales in line with other countries such as Ireland have led to a sustained right wing back lash in the media.

SomeDyke · 18/06/2018 13:39

"The current system is in place due to widespread transphobia in society."

Let's take Chesterton over the spousal veto fence..............

At the moment, when converting from a civil partnership to a marriage (I know, we have done it!), the informed consent of both persons is required (which is logical since it is not quite what we originally agreed to as a contract). If both do not consent, then it remains a civil partnership.

If a partner in a civil partnership transitioned and changed legal sex, then legally (since heterosexuals cannot have a civil partnership), their civil partnership would also have to be changed to a marriage. Which definitely should not happen without the consent of both parties.

Hence why we have the spousal veto (goady phrase that), whereas actually it is just the fairly simple thing that a contact entered into by two persons only changes if both consent. And I would definitely say that a lesbian marriage being converted into a heterosexual one (or vice versa), my consent should be needed before that can be undertaken. Because it is not what I agreed to when I originally said 'I do'. Even if the reason the fence was first erected was, as I recall, that civil partnerships were not available, for someone transitioning out of a heterosexual marriage..................

vaginafetishist · 18/06/2018 13:44

Great book (The Thing)

Gentlygently · 18/06/2018 13:46

The fence I would like explaining is why we have single sex changing rooms.

In my view allowing them to become non-single sex converts them to unisex changing rooms.

Which may be fine. But I would prefer it said so on the door, rather than requiring me to guess what ‘woman’ means.

loveyouradvice · 18/06/2018 15:36

agree gentlygently.... love Chesterton's fence.... hoping someone has an answer to this?

Non GC of course, since we understand a clear rationale

New posts on this thread. Refresh page