The Future of Legal Gender - Should state law withdraw from registering and assigning sex?

[NonnyMouse1337]

There are a number of events being held every Friday by The Future of Legal Gender which seems a spin off project by something called L/G/B/T.

futureoflegalgender.kcl.ac.uk/events-and-public-and-policy-engagements/

The next one is Should state law withdraw from registering and assigning sex? The feminist politics of decertification and prefigurative law reform, 11 Nov 2020 at 4pm.

Seems like you join via the Zoom link. Might be of interest.

Abstract
This talk explores decertification as a speculative law reform proposal. In decertification, the state withdraws from registering, assigning, or guaranteeing a person’s sex and gender, giving one shape to the growing momentum towards their informalisation. Reforming how state law
responds to sex/ gender has become a highly controversial issue. In this talk, I explore three questions, drawing from research conducted as part of a feminist ESRC funded project, The Future of Legal Gender. They are:

1. Why might decertification be a good idea?
2. What concerns does it raise; and how might they be addressed?
3. What are the strengths and challenges of prefigurative law reform research, which rehearses and attends to a proposal not yet on the law reform table?

The project seems part of a group / org that goes by the name L/G/B/T or Law/Gender/Body/Texts.
www.lawgenderbodytexts.com/

Other events (register at Eventbrite):

Fri, 13 November 2020
16:00 – 17:00 GMT
‘Ultra-Texts’ Beyond Gender. Multimodality, Intertextuality and Transmediality as Resources to Contest Gendered Binarisms

Fri, 20 November 2020
16:00 – 17:00 GMT
Gender variant bodies : stories of spaces and places

Fri, 27 November 2020
16:00 – 17:00 GMT
Rethinking gender through disability

Fri, 4 December 2020
16:00 – 17:00 GMT
Prefiguring the law

Fri, 11 December 2020
16:00 – 17:00 GMT
Dismantling the false dichotomy between women’s rights and trans' rights

[Fallingirl]

Who is giving today’s talk Nonny?
(And thanks for taking one for the team

[NonnyMouse1337]

Talk was predominantly by Davina Cooper. With a bit at the end by Lucy Vickers.

An hour and a half of my life wasted on listening to such drivel.

[GoGoGone]

I had to leave at 5 so don't know if they addressed my question. Can't imagine it would have been a useful answer though!

[Ereshkigalangcleg]

She is apparently baffled that there are women that have an issue with ‘a feminism that doesn’t centre biological sex’.

I can understand that she's mired in queer theory ivory tower pomo and it's obviously a gravy train for her and her like, but she really doesn't see why other women feel that they would like to keep their sex based rights? And don't think being a woman is a feeling? And think feminism should centre female people? And she can't wrap her brain around that? Then just maybe she isn't the great thinker she purports to be.

[stumbledin]

Thanks for those who sat through this, and releaved to find I probably didn't miss anything ...

Expect of course having to realise, that it isn't just that funding organisation seem to always pick what seem to be totally bat shit project of little value, let alone help to women.

But that of course is because the trans project is, even if it didn't set out to be, an MRA project. So of course the patriarchy through funding and education are only to happy to help facilitate projects that undermine women's sex based rights.

Just so upsetting that women are prepared to be collaborators.

[NonnyMouse1337]

Fantastic summary (not mine!) of the talk for those who were lucky enough to miss it. Please read.

the-lies-they-tell.org/2020/11/13/the-future-of-legal-gender-project/amp/

[VulvaPerson]

The Future of Legal Gender - Should state law withdraw from registering and assigning sex?

---

This is fucked up to start with. As usual, purposeful muddling of sex and gender. Why would anyone need to stop recording SEX because 'gender'?

[VulvaPerson]

[quote Ereshkigalangcleg]Here they are whining about the responses they got to their poorly constructed, confusing survey

futureoflegalgender.kcl.ac.uk/2019/09/20/engendering-criticism-reflection-on-feedback-to-our-attitudes-to-gender-survey/[/quote]
Hahahaha

The way in which the survey was framed in this online space, plus the comments written by those who reported completing the survey via this platform, would suggest that engagement from women with a gender critical perspective was greater than might have been generated from our broader-based survey recruitment plan.

Yeah, without MN, we know exactly what the survey would say, if targetting it to certain groups. Clearly really did not want any GC answers.

I also like how it says the numbers were small at 3000+, when you can bet your arse that if they had shown what the authors wanted it to show, it would have been hailed as a huge study, 100% spot on, etc etc. I think we may have pissed in their cornflakes by answering a survey that we really have a stake in. This whining makes me think of those who whinged that women filled out the GRA consultation, as apparently its nothing to do with us!

[RealityNotEssentialism]

Thanks for that summary. It was really helpful. I couldn’t make it in the end although reading that, I don’t think I missed much. So it seems that there was no opportunity to ask direct questions then? It all went through the chair? That’s disappointing.

It sounds so badly thought out, which is why I’m so shocked that they got so much funding. Also, how can it be an interesting project that age is socially constructed yet we should only do it for over 18s? Isn’t the whole argument about age being a social construct that the age 18 is just something made up and that we should let kids do what the hell they want (see queer theorists who have suggested removing the age of consent)? So how can it be a social construct but we still maintain the 18 age limit?

Their project is supposed to end in 2021. What will they have achieved beyond some talks and a few articles? Will there be anything of substance to justify all that money being spent? They claimed that they would draft legislation. It’s looking increasingly unlikely. They’ve done a poorly constructed surgery that’s told them that the public disagrees with them. They’ve done a few talks where it sounds like they resort to filibustering and waffle to avoid having to answer questions. Why would lawmakers be interested in their queer theory rubbish? The government has already abandoned plans for self-ID and the whole thing has already been debated. For them to come along a year later and say that it should be implemented on the pure basis that they think it should and that the very many problems with it aren’t important is just laughable. I hope that at least it leads to the funding bodies thinking more carefully about how it spends its funds. This is public money that has just gone on indulging a few people and paid for them to avoid doing their real jobs for a few years.

[RealityNotEssentialism]

Sorry it should say survey not surgery!

[RealityNotEssentialism]

I also like how it says the numbers were small at 3000+, when you can bet your arse that if they had shown what the authors wanted it to show, it would have been hailed as a huge study, 100% spot on, etc etc. I think we may have pissed in their cornflakes by answering a survey that we really have a stake in. This whining makes me think of those who whinged that women filled out the GRA consultation, as apparently its nothing to do with us!

This with bells on!! They got a huge number of responses for a project like this. Way more than they were expecting and the total opposite response to what they wanted. And if they are spending public money, they have to accept that public has a right to respond and that disagreeing with someone is not trolling or sabotage. It is, however, an indication that maybe what you’re arguing is flawed and doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

[highame]

Lots of Government Departments with the cash to spend are aligned to woke projects. Some mentioned upthread the impending economic doom, so silver lining indeed. Thanks to those who have put in lots of interesting points for readers like me, who can go away and ruminate. Interesting, have loved reading

[20mum]

States usually wish to record births and deaths. Birth records include sex of infant. Job done.

[RealityNotEssentialism]

@20mum

States usually wish to record births and deaths. Birth records include sex of infant. Job done.

Yeah. And they usually want to have an idea of who their citizens are so they know how many males and females are born every year etc.

I don’t think sex needs to be on passports or drivers license and the fact that you can just ask for it to be changed without a GRC makes it a bit meaningless. But there does need to be a formal record somewhere of a person’s sex, as well as age and name.