Q&A thread for New Posters

[CharlieParley]

Welcome to the FWR board and welcome to the debate. If you're new here and have been told your questions might be better on their own thread, but you're not comfortable starting your own, then please feel free to ask your question here.

I'll try my best to answer and some of our other regulars might pop in too.

People have already changed all the words. We have women called men, men called women, both sexes called enbies, etc.

And it's got worse, as it's the ones with the vaginas who are being attacked in prison, raped, losing refuges, losing sports, losing political representation, losing online space, losing their sexual orientation and their statistical data and now you want them to lose the language to even describe it.

Wilful blindness.

yes quite.

And has there been an uplift in benefits to women in allowing males to take the role of women's officers?
Are the university campuses that have males in these roles better for freedom of speech around women's rights?
Have these campuses improved the safety of women from male violence?

Or just the topics that interest that particular women's officer which may have little to do with the inherent needs, the less spoken of but just as important needs that they are blind (sometimes deliberately) to.

I've been pregnant and given birth twice, but today I tore apart our dilapidated shed by myself while wielding a hammer and wearing steel-toe shoes. I'm also wearing eyeliner and perfume. Should I identify as non-binary?

Didn't Tampax refer to women as people who bleed last year?

So presumably all sex-pay-gap issues at Procter & Gamble have been remedied now.

New poster - apologies if I use the wrong vocabulary or have misunderstood something. A (possibly facetious) question regarding the census - if I understand correctly, the census in its current form is allowing people to tick the box of their gender identity rather than their natal sex. If transwomen all tick the 'woman' box, could that actually benefit women? If it makes it look like women are more numerous, could that improve eg women's healthcare provision? But it could disadvantage transwomen with regard to healthcare. Wouldn't it make sense for the trans groups to be pushing for both natal sex and gender identity to be counted via the census?

Could we have sex based rights and gender based / self ID rights?

Like together? Is it one or the other?

Could we have sex based rights and gender based / self ID rights?

No. Either services and sports are segregated by sex or they are not. It is that simple.
Could a compromise be found, that some services and sports are single and some are mixed? I don't think transpeople and their allies are looking for a compromise. Meet me in the middle said the unjust man.

@sanluca

Could we have sex based rights and gender based / self ID rights?

No. Either services and sports are segregated by sex or they are not. It is that simple.
Could a compromise be found, that some services and sports are single and some are mixed? I don't think transpeople and their allies are looking for a compromise. Meet me in the middle said the unjust man.

Hmm so it seems like you're saying no but not saying why other than trans people don't wnat it.

Why are thing segregby sexor gender? Can we not still have protection against maternity discrimination and FGM as well as people having the right to use the toilet they want to?

Can we not still have protection against maternity discrimination and FGM as well as people having the right to use the toilet they want to?

What do you mean by "people having the right to use the toilet they want to"? Do you mean everything should be mixed sex? If so, I can't see why gender should be involved in this at all. There is no legitimate reason to separate anything by 'gender'. There are legitimate reasons for some single sex spaces.

Can we not still have protection against maternity discrimination and FGM

You need to be able to talk about the class of people that is affected by these things. You can't talk about FGM for instance without talking about the impact of FGM on having periods and giving birth.

as well as people having the right to use the toilet they want to?

If you want to allow people to use any toilet, you are saying that on balance it is better to have unisex toilets. There are many situations where there are pros and cons to segregation by sex - the pros and cons of single sex education for girls are often discussed. However, you need to be clear that you are talking about sex, not gender.

There is never any reason to segregate by gender, because, apart from anything else, nobody can agree what gender is.

x post!

@merrymouse

Women also need specific services and rights if they want to avoid having children.

I have never required the use of any service to stop me having children.

Pregnancy and breastfeeding require specific accommodations.

Pregnancy requires some adjustments such as time off for appointments and not having to do certain sorts of physical work. Pretty similar to many disabilities or medical conditions.

Not everyone can or wants to breastfeed. And in the case of any couple (or single person) caring for a baby, regardless of their sex, someone needs time off work to care for it, including feeding.

Diseases impact differently on men and women (sometimes to men's disadvantage - also see Covid).

I agree that information about biological sex can be important in data collection terms, and clearly a person’s biological sex will need to be known to their healthcare practitioners.

Even leaving aside the topic of single sex spaces and any social or cultural norms, men and women use toilets differently because their bodies function differently.

Depends on the kind of toileting in question - we all sh*t the same.

None of this should be a problem if society doesn't assume that the default norm is male. However to do that you need to acknowledge the impact of sex. You should probably read Invisible Women by Caroline Criado Perez.

I think a friend gave me that book, though I haven’t read it yet - we did discuss it and she explained the main points. I’m obviously not denying that women have historically been hugely disadvantaged in many ways and for various reasons, I’m just arguing about whether obsessing over the definition of womanhood will help us address those disadvantages, insofar as they still continue.

I have never required the use of any service to stop me having children.

However, most women do require contraception.

Pregnancy requires some adjustments such as time off for appointments and not having to do certain sorts of physical work. Pretty similar to many disabilities or medical conditions.

Most people do not suffer from a disability or medical condition until they are older. Most women have children in their 20s and 30s.

Not everyone can or wants to breastfeed. And in the case of any couple (or single person) caring for a baby, regardless of their sex, someone needs time off work to care for it, including feeding

But only women can breastfeed and women are advised to breastfeed.

Depends on the kind of toileting in question - we all sht the same.*

Not sure what your point is here. You aren’t really saying anything that is relevant.

I’m just arguing about whether obsessing over the definition of womanhood will help us address those disadvantages, insofar as they still continue.

‘Argue’ would imply presenting an argument. You aren’t doing this.

@OldCrone

What are the "concepts of 'man' and 'women'" that you want to "allow people to inhabit", if they are not to do with sex and they are not to do with stereotypes?

The majority of people have a range of conscious or unconscious expectations and assumptions they make about other people on the basis of whether they’re a man or a woman. So it’s really about a person being allowed to adopt a name associated with the gender they identify as, to ask others to use the pronouns corresponding to that gender, and to wear clothes which are generally expected to be worn by people of that gender (without being mocked or shunned).

Of course, the extent to which people they interact will actually perceive them in the same way they perceive others of that gender who are not trans will largely depend on factors which are less easily within their control - like their physique and facial features.

Are you saying that if some men can 'become' women and some women can 'become' men, that sexist stereotypes will disappear? If there are no stereotypes, and if (as I believe you are saying) a woman is something other than an adult female human, how does a man 'become' a woman?

Once gender norms are less pervasive perhaps the terms ‘man’ and ‘woman’ could genuinely just denote biological sex without any associated expectations of gender presentation, and then there wouldn’t be any trans people,

Once gender norms are less pervasive

How do you think this can be achieved in the current climate?

So it’s really about a person being allowed to adopt a name associated with the gender they identify as, to ask others to use the pronouns corresponding to that gender, and to wear clothes which are generally expected to be worn by people of that gender (without being mocked or shunned).

It's an unreasonable expectation to expect other people to automatically buy into this when someone is obviously the opposite sex. Also it's about a hell of a lot more than this or we wouldn't be having this conversation here in FWR.

Do women do anything in the loos that men don't...? If someone's forgotten about menstruation, I'm not sure they're equipped to have this conversation.

The majority of people have a range of conscious or unconscious expectations and assumptions they make about other people on the basis of whether they’re a man or a woman. So it’s really about a person being allowed to adopt a name associated with the gender they identify as, to ask others to use the pronouns corresponding to that gender, and to wear clothes which are generally expected to be worn by people of that gender (without being mocked or shunned).

Many women are fine with this, if that's where it ends. (I'm not, particularly, because of Stonewall's decision to include cross dressing, transvestism and other sexual motivations under the umbrella.)

However, It's not exclusively pronouns and sartorial choices that most women are fighting against. It's the erosion of their rights to sex segregated facilities and services when they're vulnerable. Prisons, refuges, changing rooms, mental health wards, etc. And sports.

The majority of people have a range of conscious or unconscious expectations and assumptions they make about other people on the basis of whether they’re a man or a woman.

Yes, they do. They are called stereotypes, and they are harmful to both sexes, but most obviously to women and girls. We would be better off if we could work to dismantle these stereotypes, and stop making assumptions about people based on their sex.

So it’s really about a person being allowed to adopt a name associated with the gender they identify as, to ask others to use the pronouns corresponding to that gender, and to wear clothes which are generally expected to be worn by people of that gender (without being mocked or shunned).

Why do you want to reinforce these stereotypes by identifying as a gender? Why not just be yourself, wear what you want and work towards a world where people are no longer expected to look a certain way just because of their sex?

Once gender norms are less pervasive perhaps the terms ‘man’ and ‘woman’ could genuinely just denote biological sex without any associated expectations of gender presentation, and then there wouldn’t be any trans people,

But that's never going to happen while people like you insist on reinforcing the stereotypes. One way to make the stereotypes less pervasive is to start by saying that the way people dress doesn't change anything about them apart from their clothes. As soon as you start making it all about 'gender' you're reinforcing the stereotypes.

@notyourhandmaid

Do women do anything in the loos that men don't...? If someone's forgotten about menstruation, I'm not sure they're equipped to have this conversation.

Indeed.

Menstruation, morning sickness, breast feeding issues, miscarriage (many of these will happen on the loo).

There's a lot more to women's biology than most men realise or consider.

But that's never going to happen while people like you insist on reinforcing the stereotypes. One way to make the stereotypes less pervasive is to start by saying that the way people dress doesn't change anything about them apart from their clothes. As soon as you start making it all about 'gender' you're reinforcing the stereotypes.

Yes, exactly.

It increases the stereotyping. How can it not?

The majority of people have a range of conscious or unconscious expectations and assumptions they make about other people on the basis of whether they’re a man or a woman.

Stereotypes are harmful to both males and females of all ages. I don’t know about you, but I have spent my life trying bust them. Because eliminating them, starts to eliminate sexist discrimination. Why on earth do we want to allow sexist discrimination to become the norm again? Or do you honestly believe that women had equality in the workplace, health, education and sport?

If so, please describe the utopian country you live in because it is not the U.K.

Once gender norms are less pervasive perhaps the terms ‘man’ and ‘woman’ could genuinely just denote biological sex without any associated expectations of gender presentation

This is what we want though. Abolish gender completely (we were well on the way to doing that), man and women simply is a reference to humans of the relevant sex, and people living free from expectation of being perceived to act in a certain way or with certain skills or interests etc because of that sex.

And while we work towards that, making sure women and girls are protected from said sexist discrimination and from violence of all types which is in the main being perpetrated by males.

How do you suppose we can continue to do this while bolstering up stereotypes (this is the way people should look, wear, whatever because this is what that person, who was not born this sex but believes they are that sex, perceives is what members of that sex should look like and act.)

So, by a male taking a women’s officer role, policies in place for women become shaped by what that male perceives in needed by women or their own needs. Again, policy for women’s needs become based on a male view. How is this not harmful to women?

So, by a male breaking sporting records in women’s sport, males are again superficially changing the expectations on what women can realistically achieve. How is this not harmful to women and girls?

So, now we have new reports stating their is an increase is women committing sex crimes.... and if this trend continues, females will need to be subject to new restrictions for safeguarding etc. and society now believes women are more dangerous than they were 5 years ago. Well, not really, because someone then has to work to pull out those perpetrators who are male from those statistics. Because we know in the UK that males have a higher propensity to commit those crimes from historical data. But, males are now shaping how women are perceived in society this way too. How is this not harmful to women.

So, males get to shape the realities of being a woman. Again.

So, now we have new reports stating their is an increase is women committing sex crimes.... and if this trend continues, females will need to be subject to new restrictions for safeguarding etc. and society now believes women are more dangerous than they were 5 years ago. Well, not really, because someone then has to work to pull out those perpetrators who are male from those statistics. Because we know in the UK that males have a higher propensity to commit those crimes from historical data. But, males are now shaping how women are perceived in society this way too. How is this not harmful to women.

Absolutely this. As an example of how easily things get skewed, in 2010, there were approx 47 women convicted of sex offences across the whole UK.

At the same time a sex offender called Andrew Ward was charged with 12 offences relating to serious CSA. Andrew identifies now as a woman called Beth and will have offences recorded as female if he chooses. Andrew/Beth has been caught again with extreme images of children being sexually abused.

How many offences will Andrew/Beth be charged with? With his existing 12 offences, one person would have accounted for one third of ALL the sex offences recorded against women in the entire country!

That is how easily the number are messed up and the police/CPS have been doing this for 10 years. It is now being reported that sex offences committed by women are soaring - how many of those are male??

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3348290-It-will-never-happen-resource-thread?pg=19

The 47 convictions of women had mysteriously shot up to 74 by 2014 and doubled again IN TWO YEARS to 142 by 2016 - something odd going on there?? This is around the time that the police started recording crimes by the criminal's self chosen sex.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5465541/Record-number-women-convicted-sex-crimes-Britain.html

Very topically for this thread, the Academie Française isn’t havent it feminising or gender neutralising the traditional French masculine primacy is a “mortal threat”. Isn’t it just spooky how women have been banging on about this for decades to pretty much no effect, but when the affected group is widened to “women and others who do not identify with the male gender” (sic), suddenly things start happening?

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/04a46cfc-76d5-11eb-80c3-8cc375faed89?shareToken=8a49572ad598d9fae23065275a3392ee