Ministers commit to preserving sex-based exemptions

[EmpressOfSpartacus]

Open access link: www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ministers-put-curbs-on-trans-rights-7zx2cbh2j?shareToken=71ea2e364a4682a6395af2056695238d

Kettle, we do NOT need to hear more from these people! We've heard enough!

Kettle, we do NOT need to hear more from these people! We've heard enough!

Who? Trans men? I think they have been very quiet in this debate.

Sponty posted this link though www.susans.org/forums/index.php

So I could hear more of what they had to say.

I don't think there is any mileage in third spaces because many people who identify as a gender opposite to their natal sex want the validation that comes with using women's spaces. They are not going to stand for it.

Kettlepotblackagain That forum is owned and run by a person who presents as opposite to their birth sex called Susan Lawson. They are on Twitter etc and are a very well known trans activist.

They are on Twitter etc and are a very well known trans activist.

Not a fan of Mumsnet.

Ereshkigal OH NO! They hate us.

I need to know the MN view. Never going to use woman for a person with a male body. Are we all alright going the other way? I mean using men for people with a female body?

Oops sorry kettle...no, I don't mind them! They're women! It was the whole trans male thing you said - to me that means MALES that are TRANS!

Dunno Pratchet. I say "person presenting opposite to their birth sex" mainly but have no problem saying trans man as they are women.

"Your answer does suggest you see the value in single sex provision. Can you not see that it becomes mixed sex provision the moment a person of a different sex (as determined by their sexed body) enters it."

The question is how do we map sex which these days is definitely not binary onto male and female spaces? There quite simply isn't the sort of simplistic split some people on here want. Human biology was always too complicated for that; modern medicine has made it more complicated and medical advances over the next 20 years will just make that much more so.

So single sex is a fairy tale. It's now about the best possible compromise. And for me that is Self-ID.

Snappity well given your views about sport, not really surprising. Shame though that Serena Williams would only be number 300 under your view that any form of sex segregation is patronising and it would mean that absolutely no women at all would ever have won Wimbledon and hardly any would have won an Olympic medal. But yeah, seems really logical.

So single sex is a fairy tale. It's now about the best possible compromise. And for me that is Self-ID.

Nope.

So you would like to keep single sex but for you the best solution is to let anyone who identifies into the single sex spaces, making them mixed biological sex? Yeah.... makes sense to me.

*"Your answer does suggest you see the value in single sex provision. Can you not see that it becomes mixed sex provision the moment a person of a different sex (as determined by their sexed body) enters it."

The question is how do we map sex which these days is definitely not binary onto male and female spaces? There quite simply isn't the sort of simplistic split some people on here want. Human biology was always too complicated for that; modern medicine has made it more complicated and medical advances over the next 20 years will just make that much more so.

So single sex is a fairy tale. It's now about the best possible compromise. And for me that is Self-ID.*

For me -

The way people feel is complicated.

Sex is binary.

Intersex is a muddle of genetics, misused by some to validate whatvere they want.

Gender is a nebulous and insidious black hole.

Self-ID is the most nebulous way of defining anything and therefore the worst possible compromise.

So single sex is a fairy tale. It's now about the best possible compromise. And for me that is Self-ID.

I know it makes me a bigot, but I'm so upset by that statement. Females in third world countries are in desperate need of single-sex facilities and services, which helped to play a massive part in liberating females in first world countries. The fact people want to tear all of those provisions down in the UK is just heartbreaking and terrifying to me.

Sex is binary. The survival of the species depends on this. There are two reproductive roles, no more, no less. It really isn’t that complicated.
People are born to fulfil 1 of 2 roles even in cases of a-typical development and infertility.
Of course, people can be classified in lots of different ways and you can come up with some where there is a lot of ambiguity, but sex isn’t one of these.

It's now about the best possible compromise. And for me that is Self-ID.

It's not 'compromise', it's complete capitulation. GRC and/or full transition are compromises.

It demonstrates a level of selfishness that ought to appall anyone reading it.

(That was in response to DietCoke's comment btw)

On the "not binary" thing, the fact that some people are born with disabilities, and some people are born with disorders of sexual development doesn't invalidate the binary any more than some people not being able to walk changes the fact that humans are a bipedal species biologically adapted via evolution for walking upright.

You aren’t able to say that you don’t have a problem with the single sex exemptions in the Eq A.

I don't have a problem with them

*I think I am thinking more about female-specific services and naked changing spaces. Do you have any view on that- is there in your view ever a situation where it is legitimate to segregate based on biology rather than gender identity?^

I don't have a penis. I have a vagina. Am I OK?

Do you think the single sex exemptions don’t apply to you because you have had surgery?

It's not 'compromise', it's complete capitulation. GRC and/or full transition are compromises

Yeah, I mean you do have to be living on a different planet to think that self-ID is in any way a 'compromise'. Compromise from what? You're letting every single person who says they are the opposite sex legally be treated as that. What could possibly go further? Maybe all people should automatically be assigned their opposite sex at birth instead... I think Snappity is extremely confused.

"Sex is binary."

It really isn't.

The way I look at it is like this. We all have an instinctive idea - we think - about the continents. And often it is easy. Argentina is in South America. But what of The Maldives or The Seychelles. Nowhere near as easy - Asia and Africa as it happens even though in holiday brochures they seem very similar.

How about Hawaii. America obviously. No. Oceania.

Then you start reaching the difficult ones like the Chagos Islands. I don't know if they are in a continent at all.

Humans naturally classify and group things. It's part of how we cope with the world. So we think of the world in terms of continents which mostly works well, but isn't perfect. We do the same with sex. We try to see the world as binary male and female. Mostly it works well but sex is more complex than that.

Just because you're not great at geography doesn't mean other people think that Hawaii is located just off of Los Angeles...

What the fucking fuck have the fucking continents got to do with a useless fucking public health campaign that excludes the very fucking people it is trying to fucking inform?

Just (fucking) wondering.