Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Is it really all that bad?

158 replies

Notevenmyrealname · 20/12/2018 18:14

I was having a conversation today with a friend who works in HR and is very clued up on the law and equality issues and he was saying that most of the scare stories about transgender stuff are a storm in a teacup. Realistically nobody is going to allow a small group of militant trans activists to remove women’s rights. All the updated GRA will do will allow people who need it a slightly less hassle way to change their gender officially and as it affects such a small number of people (supposedly 1% of the population) it’s really not going to have a massive impact on the vast majority of people. There are no plans to change the Equality Act of 2010, so sex will still be a protected category.
I’ve been trying to read up on lots of stuff over the last month or so and, I have to be honest, really scared myself - particularly reading all the BS spouted by Mermaids. The thought that those people are let loose in schools peddling their pseudoscience to teachers is awful, but again my friend thinks the stuff that gets reported in newspapers is always the worst of the worst as they just want clicks on their pages and I shouldn’t get myself wound up.
I’m actually going to give myself a break from all this over the next few weeks as it’s really getting to me but I was wondering if anyone else thought maybe things won’t be as bad as all the worst case scenarios that are discussed on these boards?
I’m still very much of the belief that gender identity and biological sex are separate things and I think if something could be put in law that makes that distinction clear, surely everything would be fine. Stupid ideology like the crap pushed by Mermaids and the like will be found out eventually and it’s just because they’re riding the wave with the GRA consultation having happened so recently. Teachers are regularly updated on safeguarding and the secrecy aspect would only apply if they thought the child was in actual danger (he gave the example of an extremely religious family who might try taking their child abroad to marry them off or worse, they were from a culture that commit “honour” killings).
Please reassure me that these worst case scenarios are unlikely to happen, or is my friend actually oblivious to very real dangers if these changes go through?

OP posts:
ProfessoressWoland · 20/12/2018 20:40

Realisticallynobodyis going to allow a small group of militant trans activists to remove women’s rights.

What does this mean in practice?
Women's rights are being eroded every time a female athlete loses to a TW, a woman is forced to refer to a rapist as she, or watch crossdressing men being celebrated as brave and stunning businesswomen, or share changing rooms with male-bodied people, etc. These things are already happening, and self-id will normalise these incidents further to the point where it won't be possible to challenge anything. Your friend sounds ignorant and patronising.

Bubonicpanic · 20/12/2018 20:40

Teachers are regularly updated on safeguarding and the secrecy aspect would only apply if they thought the child was in actual danger (he gave the example of an extremely religious family who might try taking their child abroad to marry them off or worse, they were from a culture that commit “honour” killings).

He is wrong there. The secrecy extends to the fact that schools are being told by genderology trainers to withhold the fact from the parents that their child is being treated as the opposite sex if the child wants them to.

lassupthebrew · 20/12/2018 20:41

Zutt, The 5000 estimate was from doctors based on the number of transsexual patients that existed at any one time in the UK. The number had been reasonably consistent for decades by 2004.

The majority of people who got GRCs in the first few years had been medically diagnosed up to 40 years earlier but until then had no such legal rights. So were accessing the law that just came in. After that the numbers settled to a relatively stable 300 or so new additions a year. About a quarter are trans men, the rest trans women.

Transsexual people die every year, of course, as there are some with GRCs now in their 90s who transitioned long ago so there is not a + 300 net addition every year. If numbers remain steady as they have up to now then it would not increase dramatically.

It will increase dramatically if the government change the rules so that a GRC is no longer accessible only to medically diagnosed transsexuals but to anyone who self IDs without any medical condition or dysphoria and for multiple reasons and without need for medical assessment or treatment of any kind.

They are turning a very specific law for a small group of people into one with an entirely different meaning covering hundreds of thousands of others who were not previously included.

They are not presenting it to the country that way (and you might well ask why not) but that is the basis of what they are doing on advice from bodies with vested interests like Stonewall.

Doobigetta · 20/12/2018 21:20

Has he got a beard?

Dammit, LoveCompost beat me to ot.

Doobigetta · 20/12/2018 21:20

*IT

R0wantrees · 20/12/2018 21:33

OP There are some comprehensive articles you might give your friend (who is wrong)
Comprehensive article by Helen Joyce (Economist's Finance Editor) 'The New Patriarchy: How Trans Radicalism Hurts Women, Children—and Trans People Themselves
concludes:
“I can’t think of any genuine human-rights activism that demands attacks on the rights and protections of other civil-society groups, or advocates hateful language against them,” says Professor Bhatt. Trans activism is also unusual in that it gives men a chance to claim they are oppressed compared with women, and plenty of opportunity to tell women to shut up, says Ms. Gerlich. “It’s a postmodern patriarchal backlash.”

The code of omertà extends to academia. After lobbying by trans activists, Brown University in Rhode Island withdrew a press release about Prof. Littman’s paper on ROGD, citing concerns that it might be used to “discredit efforts to support transgender youth and invalidate the perspectives of members of the transgender community.” Last year, Bath Spa University, in southwest England, rejected a proposal by James Caspian, a psychotherapist who specializes in transgender clients, to write a thesis on de-transitioning, explaining that the research might be criticised on social media and it would be “better not to offend people.” Kathleen Stock, a philosopher at Sussex University, wrote a Medium post in May about the lack of discussion of gender self-ID within academic philosophy. Trans-activists called for her to be sacked—and she received dozens of supportive emails from other academics, most saying they dared not speak out publicly.

The aim of all this, says Jane Clare Jones, a British freelance writer and philosopher, is not only to silence dissent, but to make it impossible to state any distinction between trans women and cis ones. Since women are oppressed because they are female, not because of feminine feelings or presentation, this linguistic erasure is “profoundly anti-feminist.” Statements such as “trans women are women” and labels such as TERF are what Robert Jay Lifton, who wrote about indoctrination and mind control in Maoist China, dubbed thought-terminating clichés: “brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases…that become the start and finish of any ideological analysis.”

In the United States, criticism of gender self-ID is complicated by partisan politics. Women who elsewhere might sound the alarm do not want to be seen as in alliance with right-wing FOX News hosts and conservative Christians who are also against gay rights and abortion rights. The most organized opposition is in Britain, where government-mandated legislative consultations provided a focal point for campaigning groups such as WPUK. Mumsnet, a parenting website founded in 2000, is less hostile to women’s discussions of trans issues (though it now removes posts that “misgender” people). And the feisty British tabloid press has not shied away from covering rapists self-identifying themselves into women’s jails, boys allowed into Girlguiding and the like. The Daily Mail fought an injunction to be able to report on Jess Bradley, a trans woman suspended in July from the post of trans-rights officer at the National Union of Students because of allegations that she ran a blog named Exhibitionizm, where she posted pictures of her exposed penis, taken in public places and in her office.

The singular focus on gender self-ID, along with the shutting down of academic work on trans issues, harms not only women, but trans people. Although trans activists’ ire is focused on women who object to self-ID, it is overwhelmingly men who commit violence against trans people, a problem that by comparison is ignored. And other causes that are important to trans people, such as more research on the causes and treatment of gender dysphoria and its links with other mental-health issues, not to mention the long-term effects of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, have become taboo.

Overall, the push for gender self-ID does more harm than good to the interests of gender-dysphoric people whose main concern is to be accepted by members of the sex they wish they had been born into. And as we see more cases of people claiming transgender status in bad faith, we may see a backlash. “We were living quite happily in women’s spaces getting on with our lives before this stuff blew up,” says Melissa, the trans person I quoted at the beginning of this essay. Which is one reason why, far from supporting self-ID, she wants to see the rules for changing legal sex made tougher: “If you want access to women’s spaces, you should have to show you’re no more risk to women than other women are.”

Needless to say, she has been called “transphobic, a cis quisling, and a sell-out.” But women’s worries about their privacy and safety should not be brushed off or shouted down, she says. That is something women had to endure for millennia, under the old-fashioned patriarchal societies of yore. And they shouldn’t have to stand for it now that it has been rekindled under a new progressive guise."
quillette.com/2018/12/04/the-new-patriarchy-how-trans-radicalism-hurts-women-children-and-trans-people-themselves/

James Kirkup's articles also excellent in The Spectator.
THey had an excllent lead article a month or so ago,

'Trans rights have gone wrong
[[The new gender orthodoxy allows no room for dissent'
www.spectator.co.uk/2018/10/trans-rights-have-gone-wrong/]]

R0wantrees · 20/12/2018 21:34

Lots more resources on this thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3145470-Break-it-down-for-me

MagicMix · 20/12/2018 21:39

For starters, men have a strong tendency to think that things that are a real problem for women are no big deal because a lot of them apparently are unable to empathise with the female perspective.

I am sure you have heard a man before saying that catcalling is not an issue at all because if a woman shouted something similar at him, he (thinks he) would be flattered. I've heard so many men take this position and try to explain to women that they should just take a compliment, completely failing to comprehend the issue because they are seeing everything from the male P.O.V. and haven't considered the context of male violence and the objectification of women at all.

It's not unlikely that your male friend suffers from this blind spot - I think all people in a position of privilege actually have these kinds of blind spots, and I include myself in that. So a lot of things that will happen are things that many women would consider a real problem but your friend just wouldn't even see the issue. I've even heard some particularly dim men say that it would be no big deal if intimate areas like communal showers were mixed sex because naked women would present no threat to them and they would like to see some boobs, taking the line that anyone who has an issue with it is just some kind of repressed prude.

R0wantrees · 20/12/2018 21:43

Dr Jane Claire Jones analysis:

"So, over the last few days a few people have asked me to deal with this delight from Professor Joanne Conaghan.

So, I'm gonna do a paragraph-by-paragraph fisk-type thing.

legalresearch.blogs.bris.ac.uk/2018/12/sex-ge…

  1. Yes, the 'debate' is a mess, and yes ppl aren't listening to each other.

BUT, when there is a collision between rights claims, I'm not sure it's a great idea to attribute it to 'unkindness.' Especially not when it's one group asking another to cede rights, and telling them

they're unkind' for resisting, especially especially not when the ones being allegedly 'unkind' have a massive gendered expectation of 'being kind' that is been widely leveraged against them.

A part of my philosophical training is in Care Ethics. I'm actually a big believer
in empathy, and the knowledge it gives us, and on revaluing that along feminist lines. But using the valuation of empathy to tell women that they need to place other people's political interests above their own is just bullshit feministing.

Nil point.

  1. 'So, this is the bit where I'm going to show how well we should listen to each other by presenting trans claims as 'perfectly proper' and feminist claims as 'misgivings' and am going to completely fail to deal with the extensive legal analysis as to why there is a conflict

between self-ID and the single sex exemptions in the EA2010.'

Here's @Julian_Norman1:

"Amendment of the GRA...will inevitably have an immediate and potentially destructive impact on the sex based exemptions provided under EqA 2010."

docs.google.com/document/d/1b7…
Here is also an interesting thread from a few days ago re: the different but related issue of the provision of cervical smears: (continues)

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1075783838217973760.html

ZuttZeVootEeeVro · 20/12/2018 21:57

lassupthebrew. Time will tell, I guess. Over 300 new GRC granted a year will almost double the number in 15/20 years, though, even accounting for those who detransition and deaths. But that is still a relatively small number of grc issued.

It's not just self id that could increase the number of applicants. Those transgender people who don't feel the need to obtain a GRC might apply if organisations demand a GRC to access sex segregated spaces. Of course, it could go the other way, and fewer and fewer people might seek GRC if sex segregation is abandoned.

Notevenmyrealname · 20/12/2018 22:02

Does he have children?
He does and that’s how the conversation came about in the first place as I was talking about some of the things I’d been reading about Mermaids. He didn’t really know anything about that so was just speculating about the secrecy thing.
He doesn’t support biological males taking part in women’s sport. He said it seems to be mediocre men trying to get some glory and thinks it’s stupid. He believes most people would not be supportive of that so thinks it will probably be legislated against eventually.
He has had experience of dealing with a variety of militant individuals over the years (political people, TU reps, etc.) and the only word I can think of to describe the way he is is jaded. He’s definitely not “woke”. I think this is probably where the issue lies in that he’s become complacent that it’s just another crazy bunch of idiots but common sense will prevail. He’s my friend and a decent human being overall so I’m obviously going to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I wasn’t convinced he had the full picture and the general consensus on here is that I’m right.
I don’t know if he will do his own research into Mermaids as he didn’t really seem to know much about them and he doesn’t have anything to do with schools in his job only with his own children but again he thought it would be unlikely that they could undermine a strong relationship between a child and their parents and my claims of “it’s tantamount to grooming” were an overreaction. To be honest, I think maybe it’s just because it’s not affected him directly yet and he’s looking at it from a distance but I also really want to not feel so horrified every time I read a news item so wanted to entertain the idea that he might be right.
Does he have a beard
I’m sorry I don’t know what this is in reference to.
You and your “friend” are choosing not to see it
What does this comment mean? I thought I was quite clear that I am of the same opinion as most people on this board but I’m relatively new to the subject so have only been reading stuff for the last month or two. Sometimes I’m not sure whether I’ve just immersed myself in it too much and maybe I need to step back and get some perspective. He is my friend and he does work in HR, and in general I agree with him on a lot of things so when he expressed this opinion about this topic I just wanted to check. I might have to work on him a bit more to point out some of the more pertinent arguments.

OP posts:
Notevenmyrealname · 20/12/2018 22:04

MagicMix
I totally agree with your take on privilege. You often don’t realise you have it until someone else points out that they don’t. That has happened to me in the past.

OP posts:
Hohocabbage · 20/12/2018 22:09

I’m glad you had an expert man friend to tell you not to worry.

DodoPatrol · 20/12/2018 22:09

The thought that those people are let loose in schools peddling their pseudoscience to teachers is awful, but again my friend thinks the stuff that gets reported in newspapers is always the worst of the worst

How old are his children?

If primary age, has he asked them how they know who is a boy and who is a girl?

If secondary age, has he asked them how many transgender children there are in their school, and which changing rooms they use?

Has he asked them whether they have been told that people can choose their gender/choose to become a boy/girl?

Would he mind if his teenage daughter came home and announced that she was a boy, wanted a binder and hormones and had changed her name?

That's what has happened to more than one of our friends as their daughters hit mid-teens. Excuse me if I don't find it wonderful that these lovely kids are potentially looking at a lifetime of medical intervention.

VickyEadie · 20/12/2018 22:09

"She posted pictures of her exposed penis".

There it is - right there. Female pronouns already mean nothing.

Squigglicious · 20/12/2018 22:16

Those militant people your friend is referring to probably didn’t have the massive institutional support the TRAs have. A fish in a fishtank is not the same as a shoal of fish in the sea.

R0wantrees · 20/12/2018 22:16

Notevenmyrealname

He should have a look at Stonewall's trans inclusion in the workplace training.

Its been adopted by many influential organisations including Parliament.

Also worth discussing Philip / Pips Bunce who is a senior manager at Credit Suisse (& Stonewall Champion).
HR managers need to be aware that they may have a future Philip /Pips or Stephen /Steph etc coming to speak with them about how the company will support their gender identity.

Notevenmyrealname · 20/12/2018 22:17

I’m glad you had an expert man friend to tell you not to worry.
I’ve painted him in a very bad light. He’s not a complete arrogant wanker and that wasn’t his tone, but I do think maybe he wasn’t being very empathetic and was showing his male privilege in this particular instance.

OP posts:
NewbieSpartacus · 20/12/2018 22:22
  1. As stated above, women already being thrown under the bus.
  2. The power of their propaganda is almost destroying a generation. Of my two teens, one is trans and the other's partner is. Kids have been told they can choose and it is hugely damaging.
Hohocabbage · 20/12/2018 22:25

But I’m not understanding why you are giving so much credence to his views. You’ve said you are of a mind with many posters on here, so why does one man putting forward an opposing view weigh so much in your head?

R0wantrees · 20/12/2018 22:31

He’s not a complete arrogant wanker and that wasn’t his tone, but I do think maybe he wasn’t being very empathetic and was showing his male privilege in this particular instance.

The majority of people do not know.
HR departments really shold be getting up to speed as a priority, but not by blindly taking Stonewall's training.

Ask him what his Diversity/ Inclusion policy has listed as protected characteristics.

There should be 9.

Sex is one, Gender reassignment is another.

Gender and Gender Identity are not protectected characteristics.

Lots of Diversity and Equality policies incorrectly quote the 2010 Equality Act.
If sex isn't listed, then there's an issue.

Vegilante · 20/12/2018 22:38

You & your friend are being willfully naive, I fear. Show him this:

Notevenmyrealname · 20/12/2018 22:40

why does one man putting forward an opposing view weigh so much in your head?
It doesn’t particularly but, like I said in app, I have immersed myself in this quite a lot recently and wasn’t sure if maybe I was becoming a little detached from reality. I’m pregnant atm and have been spending a fair amount of time in bed with various ailments. I originally came onto Mumsnet discussing pregnancy related things but have got drawn into the feminism board gradually. There have been some days when other than the odd phone call with my mum and a short conversation with my DH about his day before one of us falls asleep on the sofa, I have no contact with other adults at all. It was a conversation I had this morning so had been thinking about it over the course of the day that’s all.

OP posts:
gcscience · 21/12/2018 00:06

Has he got a beard?

This is such a pathetic prejudiced comment: admittedly, having a beard or being clean-shaven is a position of choice, unlike some things about one's body eg height. However, it is a natural biological part of being an adult human male. If more men had beards perhaps so many women wouldn't feel impelled to shave off their smattering of facial hair. Interestingly, in India, I noticed, that many men have beards and few women appear to shave their faces.

Just pathetic in every way, and not what I expect from mumsnet. Even if bearded men tend to be lame in some way, not all are surely. Pure prejudice like stop it.

NoSquirrels · 21/12/2018 01:28

What a weird response, gcscience.

The "beard" reference is just that lots of young, trendy, "woke" dudes who are "feminists" also often have elaborate facial hair. And the woke bros often don't really think through their position of "support"...

It's a stereotype, sure. I don't think it's that MN feminists are prejudiced against facial hair, though.

OP, totally understand why you posted. It can feel overwhelming and baffling. And really fucking annoying when someone says "Yeah, but it will never happen"... because they don't want to believe that it is happening. Your friend may be right that a majority of people think that trans women shouldn't be allowed to participate in women's sports. Doesn't mean it won't happen or isn't happening.