FWR more unpleasant than ever

[Snappity]

The Talk Guidelines have done little to improve things. The majority of threads are about trans matters and very few, if any, positive. Misgendering is increasingly rife. "They" for a trans woman is as bad as "he".

Even the sex of trans women with female birth certificates is not respected.

There is post after post that trans women are not women and that sex is biological and cannot be changed (totally ignoring that many aspects of sex can be changed).

Then increasingly material from elsewhere which is anti-trans is being linked.

While individual comments are fair enough, the sheer volume means that FWR is a thoroughly unpleasant place for the majority of trans people and those of us who have trans family members.

Intersex women are also repeatedly disrespected with frequent posts that women are XX or are those with female reproductive capacity. It is hugely offensive.

I am going to be here less. The harassment - and I think that is what it is - has driven me away. It is a shame because trans and intersex feminists - indeed trans inclusive feminists - should be as welcome here as any other feminists. If MumsNet believes in debate that means ensuring that one side isn't shouted down - and the sheer volume of people saying that trans women are not women and belong in male spaces (because anyone "male" is a risk to women) is shouting down the other side of the debate.

FWR needs to regain a balance.

That blogpost simply explains that the U.K. law re requiring a divorce in order to gain a GRC is in contravention of international law anyway...

But so would, we can extrapolate, refusing a GRC to someone who rushed headlong into surgery without getting a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. The case - which still has to return to the Supreme Court - doesn't mean that we have to have Self-ID but it does mean, I think, that the Gender Recognition Act has to be amended so that anyone who has had surgery and lived in the acquired gender can trivially get a GRC without a lot of red tape getting in the way.

The difficulty is that while that may appear obvious for trans women, since many trans men only have metoidioplasty framing that into law gets very difficult. The existing GRA used a diagnosis of gender dysphoria rather than a surgical basis (as was common elsewhere at the time) to get around the difficulty of defining surgery in a way which works equally for trans men and trans women.

And we definitely need something better for intersex people.

I understand the reservations about Self-ID but human variation is complex and framing an alternative to Self-ID isn't easy and I certainly haven't seen a proposal which entirely avoids Self-ID

Yes there are, if the 'discrimination' is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Hence why, as somebody stated earlier, transwomen can legally be excluded from working in rape crisis centre

No, even in that example it is a derogation from a woman's rights not a derogation from her status as a woman / female.

I am sure there are at least two people posting on this account. The tone swings so violently from slightly unhinged to pseudo rational. I am worried for one of those people

You don’t understand the law snappity TBH...

You can’t ‘extrapolate’ that... It means in order to comply with international laws that we have agreed to abide by then the U.K. should modify the part of the GRA which means happily married trans people have to end their marriages in order to obtain a GRC.

There are plenty of these laws that the U.K. just ignores, the U.K. could also choose to end our agreement to abide by them...

Now, I’m not in support of that approach but the U.K. is infamous for having a ‘this doesn’t apply to us we are civilised, we only helped create them to try and civilise those barbaric foreigners, fuck you’ approach to the EHRC...

Can you explain that please in relation to your argument that transwomen are literally women and this is completely upheld by the law? Clearly there are times when they can be excluded, such as the fact that rape crisis centres can legally discriminate against anybody who isn't a 'born' woman, including transwomen.

Put it another way. Suppose a refuge only supported lesbians and wanted to recruit a rape counsellor. As a genuine occupational requirement they might say that the appointee had to be a lesbian. That wouldn't mean that a straight woman was less of a woman than a lesbian, nor would it suggest that both lesbian and straight women aren't equally women

So, if a refuge set a genuine occupational requirement that a rape counsellor couldn't be a trans woman, that exactly wouldn't mean that a trans woman is less of a woman than other women, or that a trans woman isn't a woman.

In each case we are simply saying that there is something else that we require from these women but, despite all the claims from gender critical feminists, it does not suggest that trans women are less women than other women.

This is perhaps, the least effective break from a forum I have ever seen. Mind you it lines up with what I assumed would happen.

I am sure there are at least two people posting on this account. The tone swings so violently from slightly unhinged to pseudo rational. I am worried for one of those people

No, only me

I am sure there are at least two people posting on this account. The tone swings so violently from slightly unhinged to pseudo rational. I am worried for one of those people*

^ Agreed. It’s completely obvious that there are at least two personalities posting as the op, one seems very very vulnerable. It’s really quite disturbing.

And you may have noticed Brexit and the discussion regarding whether we are even going to be governed by the ECJ (the CJEU being one branch) when we leave...

So what is the 'something else' that a rape crisis requires from its employees that a transwoman can't provide? If as you say transwomen are literally women, why the need for any exemptions at all?

And can you please address the point I made about the many transwomen who acknowledge they are not women, and believe that activists claiming they are is damaging to them. Why is it okay for you to misgender them?

The language used has changed between posts. It’s clearly two people.

I am sure there are at least two people posting on this account. The tone swings so violently from slightly unhinged to pseudo rational. I am worried for one of those people

You mean that when, as a woman and feminist, I fight for the rights of all women to be recognised as women and the cessation of transphobic misgendering that you find that dissonant with the gender critical ideology.

We will still be a signatory to the ECHR even so but the protection it offers would be weakened significantly by taking us out of the remit of the ECJ.

Gah, I want to debate but know it's not right.

All I'll say is snappity, please, do step away, your posts really are showing signs of repeating some sort of mantra or cult like chant and really are odd. Please get some IRL help.

And you may have noticed Brexit and the discussion regarding whether we are even going to be governed by the ECJ (the CJEU being one branch) when we leave...

Yes, Brexit will have an effect but until we know what Brexit looks like - or whether it actually happens - it's impossible to say what. Moreover, although the ECJ and the EctHR are separate their jurisprudence tends to be somewhat similar over time in the areas of overlap like gender recognition.

You mean that when, as a woman and feminist, I fight for the rights of all women to be recognised as women
You are welcome to fight for the rights of other transwomen. I wish you well with that.
Women are already protected as women, and that is what we are determined to maintain.
All

Yes, because EU law extends the principles found in ECHR what with the EU being a signatory... the enforcement will change with Brexit... it will be weakened...

Either way, that blogpost does not offer any support for what you claimed... as per TBH...

Its doesnt matter what logical arguments are posted - snappity is compelled to believe that transwomen are actually women. 'Magical thinking' or maybe its us that have got a case of imposter syndrome and falsely believe that transwomen are men when they really are actually women

Please don't anyone allow yourselves to be goaded by this transparently goady poster who is openly trying to get everyone banned and to control everything said on this forum.

Worth repeating.

It's not like this person is even hiding their agenda.

All I'll say is snappity, please, do step away, your posts really are showing signs of repeating some sort of mantra or cult like chant and really are odd. Please get some IRL help.

50 years ago the gender critical position made sense but it hasn't kept up with the times because sex is now diverse eg with men giving birth. We need a new framework to deal with that and it means accepting that sex is neither binary nor immutable. Those are such alien concepts to gender critical feminists that when someone like me argues on the basis of the new reality that it seems bizarre to them.

But it isn't a cult or mantra. It is simply a recognition that humans are more complex than we previously allowed. It is no different to the modifications we had to embrace for LGB it is just that some of the people who were the modernisers for same sex rights are now the traditionalists standing in the way, and vice versa.

I'll ask my question again, as you haven't answered it Snappity.

I have no poblem using the pronouns of someone's preferred gender and I'm quite happy to say that transwomen with a GRC are legally women.

Yet you're still not happy with my posts. Why is that? I do what you've said is sufficient.

*problem

Men don't give birth. Biological women give birth (who may identify as men).

They aren't more complex - you've just changed the meaning of words! And some of us are saying No! Get your own words! Leave ours alone!