Thank you stonewall - now I know who to avoid

[Kit19]

136 businesses come together to support corporateWall sorry stonewall on trans ‘rights’

Like everyone on fwr I fully agree trans rights are human rights but what they are not is women’s rights. They are reserved for biological women

Also they must be rattled if they’ve got the city bods on their board to do a ring/email round to do a show of support

I agree that sexism is at the root of this, but I don't think you can remove gender from the equation.

I think maybe you need to clarify this.

Sorry responding to something from ages ago...

Wanted to explain why I said something. This exchange:

Me-
'2. The issues women and girls have are somehow disconnected from their physical bodies (periods, pregnancy, childbirth, menopause etc) so they don't form part of the new definition
Is an utterly male perspective.'

JJ:

'The second point I haven't argued.'

I was thinking of this which you posted JJ:

' I think if someone born physically male sees themself as a woman, 'lives' as a women, in that they are potentially vulnerable to gender based violence, and other oppressions connected with being a women under patriarchy, then it's not uncomfortable to me to include them in the category of women without feeling I'm denying physical reality. '

This absolutely denies physical reality because it writes out of the picture the physical processes that form a massive part of direct oppression of and discrimination against women and girls, and are the root causes of all the stuff not directly related (the gender stuff).

If that isn't denying female physical then I don't know what is.

I agree that sexism is at the root of this, but I don't think you can remove gender from the equation

Gender is the means, jj. And it imposes a hierarchy.

It makes sure that women, however they identify, are 'lesser than'.

Women couldn't be educated because they're too fluffy, they couldn't vote because they're too uneducated, and it would basically give their husband two votes. They couldn't own property, or take out mortgages, or bank loans because they were financially irresponsible. They had to take on all the domestic labour, because they are always nurturing. Legal 'conjugal rights', which meant a wife could not be raped, was because women were obliged to provide sex, even if they didn't want to, and men were entitled to take it.

Within my (married) lifetime rape within marriage was completely legal and I could be refused service in a pub, based purely on my sex.

Women have been characterised, variously (and not exclusively) as irresponsible, incapable of education, unable to hold high office, unable to work outside the home, incapable of financial independence, unable to manage their own alcohol intake and need to provide sex on demand - right up until the early 1990s.

Lesser than, not given any power, kept down and used for various services. Oppression.

Any time these women said I don't agree with that, I'd like my gender to be imposed like that of a male, it wouldn't have happened. The only white women have made any headway at all is by forcing through actual laws. The law to stop rape within marriage took 15 fucking years to be approved by a mainly male parliament. 15 years

Gender stereotypes have been used to mischaracterise and oppress women for centuries.

And now suddenly, guess what?

Not only are those gender stereotypes considered innate, they are being reinforced by claiming that sex is not about biology, and women, quelle surprise, are being told they are mean and nasty and not nurturing enough if they object. And they are threatened with rape and violence - the tool of oppression.

The socialisation of women is still being leveraged against them whilst it is simultaneously claimed it can be dispensed with by saying some magic words.

If gender was not a tool deliberately imposed, all these transmen would be the ones wielding the power, instead of still being the ones famous for having babies. And all the transwomen wouldn't have a voice, but be at home nurturing the children and cooking the dinners.

The reason you can't quite see this is because of sexism.

The only white women have made any headway

That's meant to say the only way women have...

@NiceGerbil

*This absolutely denies physical reality because it writes out of the picture the physical processes that form a massive part of direct oppression of and discrimination against women and girls, and are the root causes of all the stuff not directly related (the gender stuff).

If that isn't denying female physical then I don't know what is.*

I'm not denying that reality at all. I'm not saying that all trans women experience exactly the same oppression because of their gender identity as non trans women, just that trans women do experience significant elements of that oppression, namely male sexual violence amongst other things. I very much doubt an openly trans women could have been an RAF pilot in the 1930s either, and although I'd argue there were slightly different motivations for that, the end result was the same. So there are commonalities and differences, I think commonalities such as being raped, facing domestic abuse, being sexually harassed, objectified, paid less for the same work, being pressurised into bodily shame and feeling the need to live up to unrealistic physical standards of appearance and treated with everyday sexism are significant enough commonalities for trans women to be included in the political class of women. And obviously a lot of women agree with that, particularly young women, perhaps because they have grown up with trans friends and have recognised those commonalities in a way in which people who don't really know any trans people that well have not observed first hand.

@Datun

Not only are those gender stereotypes considered innate, they are being reinforced by claiming that sex is not about biology

I don't think for one second that those stereotypes are innate. I've met very few trans peoplewho do believe that and perhaps this is the point of contention. I don't think gender identity has anything to do with a set of stereotypes but is more about an internal kind of understanding of who you are that is difficult to describe, and which perhaps some people do not experience, but it has nothing to do with stereotypes. By all means refute that exists, but I don't think it's fair to misrepresent it. I'm not lying about having gender dysphoria, it has nothing to do with stereotypes, and I'm not lying about what it feels like.

Anyway, I don't really want to get drawn back in, this derail clearly pissed some people off so I really am out now.

I don't think gender identity has anything to do with a set of stereotypes

It's the only way you can feel as though you belong to a different sex.

If you're looking at another sex and thinking that's you, it can't be because you have the attributes of that sex, you don't. It's because you see something about that sex that you think you have an affinity for.

Alternatively, you see the gender stereotypes imposed on your own sex, and you feel as though you don't have an affinity for those.

Perfectly understandable, especially to feminists.

What trans ideology does, though, is reinforce those stereotypes. For instance It says if a transwoman feels as though the stereotypes that apply to women, also apply to them, that must mean they're a woman.

Alternatively, if they feel as though the stereotypes historically applied to men, don't apply to them, that must mean they're not a man.

It's quite extraordinary that a trans person will tell you, and quite evidently show you, that then being trans occupies their mind for a great deal of the time. For some people it's their entire life. But then will be singularly unable, with every word in the English language at their disposal, to describe it when asked.

And yet there are thousands upon thousands of YouTube videos detailing exactly what they like about the opposite sex stereotypes.

There was a young transman on here a few weeks ago who said they like cutting the grass, fondly thinking that we would all imagine that was a masculine thing to do.

I totally disagree with you JJ.

The experiences of growing up and living with female biology are so massive to women and girls that you can't just airbrush them out.

@NiceGerbil

I totally disagree with you JJ.

The experiences of growing up and living with female biology are so massive to women and girls that you can't just airbrush them out.

Of course you can't. The reality is so completely different to the fantasy.

There is layer upon layer of sexism and entitlement involved in claiming you have an affinity for women, whilst dismissing the vast majority of their experience.

@Datun

It's the only way you can feel as though you belong to a different sex.

Last point very quickly, but how do you know? How do you know that there isn't some part of our brains that contains a body map, or sense of our sex, and that possibly in some people that is discordant? People talk as if we have a vast understanding of the human brain when in reality we know very little about it. I'm not saying with any certainty that's the case, but it's unscientific to rule it out surely. Trans people have been around a long time, it has manifested, admittedly in different ways, in many different cultures. There is surely something going on we don't fully understand yet from a scientific point of view.

[quote jj1968]@Datun

It's the only way you can feel as though you belong to a different sex.

Last point very quickly, but how do you know? How do you know that there isn't some part of our brains that contains a body map, or sense of our sex, and that possibly in some people that is discordant? People talk as if we have a vast understanding of the human brain when in reality we know very little about it. I'm not saying with any certainty that's the case, but it's unscientific to rule it out surely. Trans people have been around a long time, it has manifested, admittedly in different ways, in many different cultures. There is surely something going on we don't fully understand yet from a scientific point of view.[/quote]
jj, I don't know for sure, of course.

But there is overwhelming evidence from both detransitioners and gender clinics like the Tavistock that gender dysphoria is a mental issue based on a number of factors. Sometimes homophobia, or past sexual trauma, autism, etc.

So many gentle, sensitive, effeminate little boys being criticised and told they must be a girl. It's regressive.

The point is that sex is just a description of reproductive potential. That's what it is. And it's important, quite evidently, in an infinite number of ways.

We can't change laws, protocols, customs, and dictionary definitions on a fantasy that it's possible to be born in the wrong body.

And even if you were 'born in the wrong body', whilst that would be mentally quite traumatic, you would still be the sex of that body.

Because that's what sex is.

How do you know that there isn't some part of our brains that contains a body map, or sense of our sex, and that possibly in some people that is discordant?

Surely all this would medically confirm though is the origin of body dysphoria occurring for a person.

There cannot be an inbuilt map for gender when it's based on stereotypes, because those stereotypes vary between cultures and times, they are not consistent. Liking pink for example, when it's not so long ago that pink was typed as signifying a boy.

If you try to attach characteristics, preferences, feelings and values to a sex, but most people of that sex don't perform or experience those things while still being of that sex, the sex and expression of gender obviously aren't that tightly connected.

It remains that sex is a fixed, immutable thing, and gender is a personal choice that evolves and responds to many things in a social context over a lifetime.

Yesterday 08:15 FloralBunting

I'm curious about only one thing here, really; why women are supposed to give a shit about certain people's opinions about their rights.

Sure, everyone is entitled to their views, and to express them. But no woman should feel obligated to explain at length why her sex deserve rights and protections and that they need to be preserved, not curtailed by the demands of a completely different group or dismissed and patronised by said group.

@MichelleofzeResistance

How do you know that there isn't some part of our brains that contains a body map, or sense of our sex, and that possibly in some people that is discordant?

Surely all this would medically confirm though is the origin of body dysphoria occurring for a person.

There cannot be an inbuilt map for gender when it's based on stereotypes, because those stereotypes vary between cultures and times, they are not consistent. Liking pink for example, when it's not so long ago that pink was typed as signifying a boy.

If you try to attach characteristics, preferences, feelings and values to a sex, but most people of that sex don't perform or experience those things while still being of that sex, the sex and expression of gender obviously aren't that tightly connected.

It remains that sex is a fixed, immutable thing, and gender is a personal choice that evolves and responds to many things in a social context over a lifetime.

Exactly Michelle.

It reminds me of when the "God region" of the brain was discovered - an area which could be seen to light up in brain scans when people reported having religious experiences (I think they got religious people and asked them to pray/meditate on religious themes, while in an MRI scanner, and compared them with a control group of atheists practising mindfulness). The researchers also found that if they externally stimulated that region of the brain with electrodes, they could induce fake religious experiences in people with the underlying disposition.

The lead researcher was at great pains to point out that the discovery of this region simply explained why some people had experiences they subjectively conceptualised as the immanent presence of the divine. It did not answer the question one way or the other as to whether those experiences corresponded to anything outside them (God).

The same arguments apply, mutatis mutandum, to people reporting subjective experiences of their own internal gender, at odds with their sexed body. I remain a gender atheist.

And obviously a lot of women agree with that, particularly young women, perhaps because they have grown up with trans friends and have recognised those commonalities in a way in which people who don't really know any trans people that well have not observed first hand.

Why on earth dos this come up time and time again, as if noone who is gender critical can possibly know a transperson.

Honestly, I would be more shocked if someone didn't know a transperson with how many there are today...

I think commonalities such as being raped, facing domestic abuse, being sexually harassed, objectified, paid less for the same work, being pressurised into bodily shame and feeling the need to live up to unrealistic physical standards of appearance and treated with everyday sexism are significant enough commonalities for trans women to be included in the political class of women.

They may be 'similar', but I disagree that they are coming from the same base as females. Not only that, but males have had a degree of male privilege that cannot be denied. Plus women have different vulnerabilities that need to be considered. And there will be a degree of phobia that makes this different.
So, no. While the acts are abhorrent and are similar acts, the motivations would not be similar enough in my view to 'include transwomen in the political class of women'.

And obviously a lot of women agree with that, particularly young women, perhaps because they have grown up with trans friends and have recognised those commonalities in a way in which people who don't really know any trans people that well have not observed first hand.

I think that like many of the women I talk to, 'young women' have not yet understood why their rights are so important.

To put it back in line with the topic of the thread from be able to avoid these companies as prospective employers, I started to only understand this after missing out on roles in my early 30s and then getting the sack while pregnant. Then, I understood and I realised that sadly, there was not the equality that everyone was being told was 'here'. And all I worked to overcome through educational opportunities was nothing still compared to , you know, men's education and experience. That is when I started fighting.

So, I think that this acceptance you attribute to women now, will be diminishing in year's to come. Why? Because women will realise they have been gaslit yet again. Particularly, when they start losing roles that are supposed to be helping 'balance' gender representation or women's officer roles to people who are males identifying as women and that equality is yet further away. Particularly in companies that are so concerned about being seen as 'champions.'

But I'd love for you to come back and tell us exactly why I am wrong.

Without mixing up 'gender' and sex and stereotypes and sexism.

I think that like many of the women I talk to, 'young women' have not yet understood why their rights are so important.

That should read enough 'young women', because there are plenty who already do and probably feel they cannot say anything.

If your employer is on there, it would be worth checking WHO exactly in your organisation has approved and how internal views were sought and what the briefing was.

Whatever your position, it's an extremely politically divisive issue and I'm betting in the case of the law firms and professional services firms the approval was from HR and not by the Senior Partners, or if it has been, the briefing was very sketchy. Senior Partners tend to be very careful about what they put the firm's name to and I know ours would not be impressed if they were tricked into pledging support for something without the full facts.

To put it back in line with the topic of the thread from be able to avoid these companies as prospective employers, I started to only understand this after missing out on roles in my early 30s and then getting the sack while pregnant. Then, I understood and I realised that sadly, there was not the equality that everyone was being told was 'here'. And all I worked to overcome through educational opportunities was nothing still compared to , you know, men's education and experience. That is when I started fighting.

Yes, precisely. It is possible (in fact most young women do) to sail through one's twenties thinking it's all been solved and there are no problems beyond annoyingly being hypersexualised by the music industry/popular media.

Then you have a child and all the sexist assumptions about the double shift, being expected to do that extra 4 hours on a work project which you can't stay late for because you have to do the school pick-up, finding you can't travel to that crucial client meeting because it's the week your child starts school and finding your career sidelined as a result - all that comes back to bite you on the arse... because biology!

It's not that biology renders you incapable of doing any of these things as well as a man, it's just that biology is the marker used to identify you as the "lesser human" in other people's view, and the system is set up to be utterly inflexible round women's caring responsibilities (while being as flexible as you like round, for e.g., men's hobbies). Toxic mess of biology, sexist assumptions and structural/instutional sexism.

None of which has anything to do with .

I think commonalities such as being raped, facing domestic abuse, being sexually harassed, objectified, paid less for the same work, being pressurised into bodily shame and feeling the need to live up to unrealistic physical standards of appearance and treated with everyday sexism are significant enough commonalities for trans women to be included in the political class of women.

The only commonality is being perceived by others to be female.

That has nothing to do with self ID, and it doesn’t negate the need for recognition of sex based rights in law.

And obviously a lot of women agree with that, particularly young women, perhaps because they have grown up with trans friends and have recognised those commonalities in a way in which people who don't really know any trans people that well have not observed first hand.

They are in denial.

It’s difficult to accept that you need specific sex based rights, and that it will never be possible to take access to birth control or maternity rights for granted, for the simple reason that 50% of the population don’t need them.

This doesn’t change whether you have 0, 10 or 1000 trans friends.

non trans women

The word ‘women’ works just fine thanks.

We all know what the women means - even those who pretend that it includes human adults who aren’t female.

Does anyone know much about "Athena SWAN Charter" or Advance HE (formerly known as Equality Challenge Unit)
One of the institutions on that Stonewall list also works with a couple of other organisations for its diversity strategies, Athena SWAN being one (or a part of Advance HE). It talks about women and STEMM but keeps referring to gender (as does the institution) so wondering if they've been spoken about before and/or what to do about it
www.ecu.ac.uk/equality-charters/charter-marks-explained/

Then you have a child and all the sexist assumptions about the double shift, being expected to do that extra 4 hours on a work project which you can't stay late for because you have to do the school pick-up, finding you can't travel to that crucial client meeting because it's the week your child starts school and finding your career sidelined as a result - all that comes back to bite you on the arse... because biology!

It is not biology- it's a failure to organise domestic arrangements , if it is a 2 parent family.

And what do you suggest? Tell the client to reorganise their project to suit you?