Guardian article on MPs concern with GRA

[Maeb]

I'm really suprised! I hope it's in the print edition too.

Transgender law reform has overlooked women’s rights, say MPs

Stephen the feminist board on Mumsnet is subject to extra rules over and above the other fora on the site. This is solely due to campaigning and demands by transactivists - the women of FWR do not agree with having extra restrictions on either side just for this section of the site. However, they have been imposed upon us (due to the demands of your compatriots) and we all have to stick to them. You will find them here:

www.mumsnet.com/info/trans-rights-moderation-policy

You will see that designating other people as either "cis" or "TERF" is grounds for deletion and three such offences result in a withdrawal of posting privileges.

After you've finished reflecting upon the Samaritans guidelines about suicide reporting and the Working Together statutory safeguarding framework, perhaps you could also reflect upon the restrictions of speech demanded by your fellow activists. It would, as I keep saying, help immensely if you could use your considerable influence to arrest these disturbing characteristics of your movement.

(FWIW - I rarely report anyone for anything and I didn't report you.)

LangCleg

I made it clear it was me earlier, Stephen is directing that at myself. I also do not agree with those guidelines, but if my comments are deleted inline with those guidelines, then so should Stephen’s. I also detest being referred to as c**. It is infuriating.

No-one talks about consciousness raising now.

We might not talk about it specifically but the whole of FWR is consciousness raising. Just not the type transactivists are keen on!

I made it clear it was me earlier, Stephen is directing that at myself. I also do not agree with those guidelines, but if my comments are deleted inline with those guidelines, then so should Stephen’s. I also detest being referred to as c. It is infuriating.

Which is fair enough, Penny.

Language does exist in context - we all occasionally short cut to explain complex issues. It isn't right or wrong, it is what we do.
I agree, trans isn't a default position. But I wonder whether we are seeing a change in what we mean by a man or a woman. They are a socially constructed set of categories, originating in dominant, but not exclusive, biological categories.

Younger people (a lot younger) seem to vary considerably in their approach to gender - one of our young adults pointed out yesterday that I was labelled as 'Steven - a transsexual' in a 1995 Frost programme. She said 'would they dare do that today?' - and I am eternally grateful that I am more than just a transsexual person nowadays. But in our ensuring chat, we did wonder whether being a man or a woman is now definitely different from being male or female. Where would an intersex person fit - after all there are many different categories of intersex syndromes?
I have assumed for a long time that biology isn't destiny - but then I would, because it wasn't. And as our young adults said, because they have known me as dad, they also as young men and women see far more options on the table for people who desire them, or need them.

I have often said we should remove gender and sex from law altogether, so no one can rely on them to justify their lives or actions.

The recent scottish case where a trans man was convicted of using an object for penetration is a case in hand. He has gender recognition in Spain, but the prosecution was gender neutral as the offence is properly a gender neutral offence. Anyone can do the same offence.

If we undertake the thought exercise that instead he had undergone phalloplasty, and his penis was a constructed penis, which he had used in intercourse. Should he then have been charged with rape using his penis . Would that be the correct charge? I would say yes, because the surgery for constructing a phallus is really no different on trans men from when performed on a natal man who has lost his penis in an accident. Yet some say rape is a male only crime (as said by many regarding the Karen White case). Perhaps it isn't a male only crime, but a men only crime.

In the original Corbett v Corbett case when trans people were categorised as unable to 'change their sex', the judge decided that a neo-vagina was so significantly different from a birth vagina, ( he said it is a matter of cm between that and the anus - implying April Ashley had a form of pseudo-anal sex) that it could never be used for sex as a woman would.
It was over 20 years later, before it was decided that rape of a trans woman using the neo-vagina was to be considered the offence of rape, and not merely sexual assault.

But, in a time when the options seem to be growing, imagine if a woman chose to undergo the construction of a penis, would she be able to be charged with rape if she used it to penetrate another woman non-consensually?

I suspect not, because rape is so held to be only a male crime - as it is of course, at the moment. But could it change?

I believe that post is commonly known as a non sequitur, Stephen.

Please try to engage with substantive, specific points made to you. We already know what you think. We are attempting to get you to engage with various specific consequences if what you think were to be put into practice.

Non sequiturs are unhelpful in good faith debate.

And - referring back to the scottish case, if he had used a constructed penis and not disclosed that to the women during what was consensual sexual activity, would the sex have still been consensual if they later discovered that the penis was constructed (as in the actual case, they discovered later he was using an artificial penis).

Would he be able to be charged - and what would he be charged with? And where would our answer leave those men who have constructed penises?

LangCleg of course FWR is consciousness raising; my point with saying it is an outdated phrase is because I genuinely believe that Stephen’s finger is on the pulse of several decades ago and not the last five years, wilfully or not. The expression comes straight out of the 1970s, whereas the problems we are seeing now have forty years of development in between. He cannot claim to care for women’s rights if his feminist language is forty years old. It just shows he has not engaged with women’s history and issues.

Younger people (a lot younger) seem to vary considerably in their approach to gender

You forgot the word, ‘some’ younger people. I’m a parent. The teenagers I know, including my own, think gender is bullshit and something that hurts both females and males. They’re not confused about the words men or women, or what they mean.

Woman: adult human female. An observable, material reality. Not a social construct.

Please try to engage with substantive, specific points made to you. We already know what you think. We are attempting to get you to engage with various specific consequences if what you think were to be put into practice.

👌🏾

The point made was that 'trans was not the default position' , men and women is apparently.
I don't agree that that is as read any longer, language and its usage is constantly changing. You may remember when it people were men and 'girls', and the campaigning of 3nd wave feminists to become grown up women existed.

Language and it’s usage are constantly changing, but that does not mean that change is value-neutral and cannot be challenged.

I have often said we should remove gender and sex from law altogether, so no one can rely on them to justify their lives or actions.

That's an excellent idea. I think men would stop raping women if we had no legal definitions.

We would just be reading about some people raping other people.

I'm not sure why you are hung up on what constitutes a crime if a fake penis is used.

It's vanishingly rare.

Instead, it would be useful if you would address the reactions to your comments, such as explaining what criteria you deem necessary for a gender recognition certificate to be considered fraudulent?

Since being a bomb, making father of seven criminal who has never expressed any gender dysphoria, doesn't seem to fit.

You may remember when it people were men and 'girls', and the campaigning of 3nd wave feminists to become grown up women existed

That’s hardly the same. The words men and women are clearly definable terms that the overwhelming majority are happy with. Those who wish to refer to themselves in a different way, can do so, but they can not rename everyone else, nor demand we validate their beliefs by forcing changes to our language on us.

Please stop bringing intersex into it, intersex people have repeatedly asked TRA’s to STOP.

Stephen, thanks for engaging.

If "woman" and "man" are words that can't really be defined and are changing, then what exactly are transgender people identifying as exactly?

If you identify as a man Stephen, what specifically is it about "man" that you identify with? How do you know that what you feel is "man"?

You may remember when it people were men and 'girls'

There were also 'the boys in the back room'. And boys will be boys, when referring to men.

The word woman still had a definition of adult human female.

As it does now. Woman and female means the same, one is the adult version.

Yes, but Stephen, the context of the comment was your use of 'non trans' as though trans was the default.

Fwiw, most people here have no issue with anyone presenting to the world as they feel happiest. I'd be quite happy to remove notions of gender from law and just have laws that confirm everyone is allowed to present as they wish.

But references to sex are necessary because sex based protections for women have nothing at all to do with how we present ourselves to the world or feel inside, and everything to do with unchangeable biology.

The concern here is not to restrict the human rights of trans people - it is to make sure women retain everything they have won for their protection.

Personally, as someone bringing up daughters, I will not be telling them that they should be wary of women with fake penises trying to rape them.

These thought experiments fall down so utterly when you are trying to live as real people in the real world.

re. the Guardian article
Please see www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/17/transgender-law-reform-has-overlooked-womens-rights-say-mps

I'm glad that The Guardian changed that.

Good. Glad you and they are finally being more responsible about this.

For example, Stephen, do you have any substantive response to the criticism that R0wantrees and I have levied. To whit:

Do you understand the conflict between your libertarian approach to human rights law in which you seek to extend individual rights with our communitarian approach to safeguarding frameworks in which we seek to protect vulnerable groups?

Do you think it correct to prioritise the former over the latter? And if so, what would you suggest we do about the inevitable collateral damage? And if you haven't addressed these conflicts before (are you like Stonewall, for instance, and simply deny they exist rather than reflect upon them?) why haven't you?

Thank you for engaging Stephen, and thank you for having parts of that quote pulled.

I have several trans friends and a close trans family member. Your full quotation yesterday really upset me. It painted trans people as being fragile and stroppy. All of the trans people in my life are reasonable, balanced people. They would never ever threaten anyone with suicide in order to get their own way. You do not speak for them when you say things like that.

I see an awful lot of attempting to muddy the water, fogging the concepts, trying to create uncertainty where there is none, imply change where for 99.9% of the population this is just not on their radar and they just don't have enough time in their hands for existentialism.

It's painted so nicely and charmingly as 'inclusive' to do this fogging and expanding and fiddling around with boundaries through endless explanations and implications, but the bottom line of this is that it's main effect is to blur and nicely, quietly fuck up safeguarding.

It makes women and children less safe, less protected, less valued, less seen in law. It benefits males' power, control and sexual rights.

Totalitarianism and male sexual rights movements at the cost of half the population is not something I'm celebrating, including or tolerating. The answer is No.

But I wonder whether we are seeing a change in what we mean by a man or a woman. They are a socially constructed set of categories, originating in dominant, but not exclusive, biological categories.

I have to disagree with this statement, Stephen. 'Woman' and 'man' are defined, respectively, as 'adult female human' and 'adult male human'. They are defined in the same way as an adult female sheep is a ewe and an adult male sheep is a ram. Woman and man are not socially constructed. They are words which refer to adult humans with reference to their reproductive role.

I assume that people who suffer from gender dysphoria (or perhaps more accurately sex dysphoria) can't live in the bodies that they were born with, so living as a masculine woman or a feminine man is not enough. It makes me sad that some people can't accept their bodies, and feel the need to alter them with surgery and pharmaceuticals, but I do not think it is reasonable to expect the remainder of society (well over 99% of us) to change the way we view the world and our place in it because of the dysphoria of a tiny number of people. We can be compassionate and caring about the difficulties of others, but I view it as unreasonable to expect us to sacrifice our own well-being and identity.

I would also be interested in your answers to Popchyk's questions:

If "woman" and "man" are words that can't really be defined and are changing, then what exactly are transgender people identifying as exactly?

If you identify as a man Stephen, what specifically is it about "man" that you identify with? How do you know that what you feel is "man"?