Women's Hour features interviews with Professor Alex Sharpe and Professor Rosa Freedman as part of 'Sex & Gender' series **Thread title edited at OP's request**

[kesstrel]

The topic is "The law on sex and gender".

So someone with AGP - cissexual and transgender. no issues with their sexed body but would like to take on stereotypes associated with the opposite sex
someone with gender dysphoria - transexual and transgender Doesn't like their body/sex organs and would like to take on stereotypes associated with the opposite sex
someone who thinks gender is a social construct - cissexual and ? no issues with their sexed body and rejects all stereotypes
someone who wholly identifies with sex stereotypes - cisexual and cisgender no issues with sexed body nor performing according to the stereotypes associated with their sex

Does that sound like what they mean?

I can't see cissexual sticking tbh. If the TRAs grant that there is another way to be a woman, one that is based on biological sex as opposed to an undefined set of psychological characteristics, then they really don't have a leg to stand on with TWAW.

The whole TWAW mantra is based on this belief that women share a set of psychological characteristics. If women are allowed to opt out of these psychological characteristics and still get to be women because of their shared set of sex characteristics, where does that leave the people whose only claim to womanhood is that they supposedly share an essence or identity with women who say they don't have this essence or identity.

I think the cissexual/cisgender distinction is quite useful.

Cissexual appears to mean content with your sexed body.

Cisgender appears to mean content with the stereotypes which go with your sexed body.

A transwoman who is content with her ladydick is cissexual but may be transgender.

A cissexual person should never be allowed to change their legal sex, since they are content with the sex they were born as, even if they identify as transgender.

"I think the vast majority of feminist support us, this isn't really a battle between trans women and cis women, as the media like to frame it, and as gender crits like to frame it. This is a battle between intersectional feminism, those who are truly inclusive, those that I would describe as real feminists, and exclusionary feminism, exclusionary feminism has always been a part of feminism, it's like bubonic plague, it's always been in the soil, and it always rears its ugly head from time to time and we're seeing that happen right now."

HerFemaleness
Yep, it seems to be getting more vague. Invisible essence of woman. Soon it'll be available in a spray treatment.

I can't see cissexual sticking tbh It's not very easy to say, whilst keeping your teeth in.

Laniakea
It's even worse when you see it in writing

So, given that a lot of trans women retain their penis, are we to assume that they are cissexual but not cisgendered, just like most gc feminists?

it's like bubonic plague, it's always been in the soil or Anthrax?

or maybe tetanus?

Hmm..that was again a win for gender critical feminism and a fail for the consistently incoherent trans lobby.

It was also delightful to be introduced to the new, to me, Cis gendered and Cis sex distinctions...which can never be fully explained without pissing off 95% of the population who have no intention to start referring to themselves as cis anything.

Still we do have to thank Alex for suggesting that women who argue that women and children's rights to single sex spaces should take precedence over the rights of male bodied men to access those spaces, are like the bubonic plague.

TRAs just cant talk about women's rights without some hardcore misogyny creeping in..

'I think the vast majority of feminist support us, this isn't really a battle between trans women and cis women, as the media like to frame it, and as gender crits like to frame it.'

Does Alex mean cissexual women and transsexual women or cisgender women and transgender women here? I am so confused!

So, given that a lot of trans women retain their penis, are we to assume that they are cissexual but not cisgendered, just like most gc feminists?

It would seem so. Which is probably why they hate us, because it shows how ridiculous their TWAW argument is.

"CisSexual"

Am I the only one picturing Les Dawson, dressed as Cissie, trying to say 'sexual'?

I'd like to see them invoke the psychic insights of Layla Moran

James Kirkup recent Spectator article:
'This MP has summed up everything wrong with the transgender debate'
(extract)
Ms Moran has said she believes trans women are women. Mr Davies has said he believes that a person with a penis cannot be a woman.

Their exchange is here:

David T. C. Davies:

‘I hear what the hon. Lady is saying. May I bluntly ask her whether she would be happy sharing a changing room with somebody who was born male and had a male body?’

Layla Moran:

‘I believe that women are women, so if that person was a trans woman, I absolutely would. I just do not see the issue. As for whether they have a beard, which was one of the hon. Gentleman’s earlier comments, I dare say that some women have beards. There are all sorts of reasons why our bodies react differently to hormones. There are many forms of the human body. I see someone in their soul and as a person. I do not really care whether they have a male body.’

And that, in a nutshell, is the transgender debate. Remember, Ms Moran, an intelligent and educated member of Parliament was speaking in a debate about laws that help determine how and whether people with female bodies can chose to separate themselves from people with male bodies. I’ll repeat her key observation again, just for clarity:

‘I see someone in their soul and as a person. I do not really care whether they have a male body.’

Truly, Britain is a fortunate nation. This year really has demonstrated how lucky we are in the talents of our elected representatives. But even after the masterful Brexit debate and all the other delights, we didn’t know just how blessed we are. Because it turns out have an MP who has the gift of being able to see people ‘in their soul’.

That must come in handy for all sorts of things, including the sort of case Mr Davies raised: being able to look at someone and gaze deep into their innermost thoughts and essence and understand what sort of person they are and what intentions they have would doubtless allow you to decide whether you were happy to undress in their presence.

But what about those women who do not possess Ms Moran’s remarkable gift, and who might just be a little concerned about the anatomy of the people they share changing rooms and bathrooms with? Women who might not subscribe to the fact-free, anti-evidence superstitious gibberish contained in talk of seeing souls? Women who might just consider material reality, biological fact and thousands of years of accumulated evidence about male violence, committed with male bodies, to actually matter? Women who might be left asking, if even MPs debate laws on sex and gender on the basis of ‘souls’ not bodies, what hope is there?"

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/11/this-mp-has-summed-up-everything-wrong-with-the-transgender-debate/

threads:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3429969-Watch-live-Government-debate-on-self-ID

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3431013-James-Kirkup-being-fab-again

Thanks Lanaikea

That sounds like someone who was watching Dr Who last night - it's in the soil

Oi no Who Spoilers!

The inability to deal with definition by someone who is apparently a law academic is perplexing. Lawyers spend a lot of time writing definitions or trying to fit things inside or outside of them. It's a really integral piece of lawyering. Even for academics who never set foot in a Coutroom, or sully their hands by meeting clients.

the utterly sensible argument that cis women have nothing to fear from changes to the GRA

Oh fuck off.

Who are you to tell women they have nothing to fear? You're supposed to be women which would imply giving a shit about women's issues (actual women's issues instead of demanding women centre transwomen's issues and shut up about everything else) and caring how other women feel.

Characteristic of toxic and abusive people: your no will only be respected when you give me a reason I wholly agree with. (So keep coming up with those statistics for us to sneer at and disagree with.)

No. Women do not have to prove to the last decimal place why they don't want to undress or be in situations of privacy alongside male bodied people who may or may not be trans and may or may not have an APG fetish, and in many cases for no other reason than that female bodied people like privacy from male bodied people.

Male bodied people do not get to define female bodied people's boundaries and rights. That's bottom line sexism and misogyny, and I'll call it for exactly what it is.

painintheear

someone who thinks gender is a social construct- cissexual and non binary?!

Yeah, I had a Twitter interaction with Alex that left me less than impressed with Alex’s ability to reason logically

This person is a barrister and a professor. It’s a worry

Thought Rosa was excellent and Sharpe was awful. Entitled and very masculine.

I was wondering whether there was any reason why Ross didn't mention the Swedish study which states that trans women commit crime at the same rate as men, do you think this was a deliberate omission and the study isn't significant/reliable or just oversight or not necessary. Just about to quote it and want to check.

This is what frustrates some people so much.....the fact that they are not actually a woman (of the cis/born/natal variety, or however you spin it)

Thanks all for the lovely comments. Not much of a poster but really grateful for the comments, which I read on my way home. We ran out of time on air to go into some of the issues, so Jane asked me a series of questions for the podcast that is posted later or tomorrow (not all of which they will use, but allowed me to go into the law a bit more)

Male bodied people do not get to define female bodied people's boundaries and rights. That's bottom line sexism and misogyny, and I'll call it for exactly what it is.

In a nutshell.