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.

On the grammatical tangent, I entirely agree with the Académie. A couple of years back I was required to write an essay (French refresher course) using l'écriture inclusive to prove I could do it. So difficult. At the time I felt very cynical about what level of enthusiasm there could be for it in France!

No matter how enthusiastic the younger members of the class were about how progressive and non-sexist it was, I privately suspect almost all of them defaulted back to male-default in subsequent weeks.

Or more likely, wrote it in male-default and then translated.

Funnily enough, that was how I did the first essay..

It all looks wonderfully progressive on the surface, but everyone's faking it, aren't they?

You demonstrate membership of the educated class but like womxn etc, no-one can actually pronounce these neologicisms. And while playing a game of better-educated-than-thou is normal for the internet, what happens when businesses, charities, and public services join in on it, in real life?

In the UK 16.4% of adults in England, or 7.1 million people, can be described as having 'very poor literacy skills.' They can understand short straightforward texts on familiar topics accurately and independently, and obtain information from everyday sources, but reading information from unfamiliar sources, or on unfamiliar topics, could cause problems. This is also known as being functionally illiterate.

[source: National Literacy Trust]

@OldCrone

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.

EXACTLY THIS. I will never understand how gender ideologists can’t grasp this extremely simple concept.
Misogynists - women should do the dishes Feminists - anyone can do the dishes Gender ideologists - whoever is doing the dishes is a woman

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

If you redefine woman to mean anyone who wants to be one, I can guarantee you those disadvantages will dissapear. From being visible to anyone except the women who suffer the disadvantages. Try naming something you don't have a word for.

👏👏👏

Misogynists - women should do the dishes
Feminists - anyone can do the dishes
Gender ideologists - whoever is doing the dishes is a woman

Yes - but I don't think Gender ideologists are concerned about dishes.

I think it's more

Misogynists - women should wear lipstick

Feminists - anyone can wear lipstick

Gender ideologists - whoever is wearing lipstick is a woman. People who do dishes probably just like cottagecore.

Assuming we’re still doing new and random questions -

And I’ll admit I don’t know the legal stance on it although I can google that - I’m interested in the feminist opinion and argument.

If a male born person has gender reassignment are we comfortable with them using female spaces? Toilets, changing rooms etc.

On the one hand I feel yes because someone who has gone the lengths of surgery to remove their penis, probably does meet my personal level of changing identify for genuine reasons.

• how much does GR go towards making it ok for a trans woman to call herself a woman. If you don’t have a penis is it better?

Or is it simply - born male, always trans woman therefore always excluded from women’s protected spaces?

(I realise the law around GR and what we think is right could be different here)

The problem goes like this.

Sex is a protected characteristic, and single sex spaces, including hospital wards, rape crisis centres, changing rooms and public lavatories, are mandated as single sex. Not single gender: in law, gender is not actually defined as far as I know, and it is hard to see how it could be since it deals entirely with what an individual feels rather than with objective fact.

You can change your gender; you cannot change your sex.

Whether some (male) trans women are able to pass as female is not the point. The point is that if the law allows any males the right to use single-sex female-only spaces, then any male has the same right in law, and males who will take advantage of this are very likely to be precisely those males who should not under any circumstances be allowed free access to vulnerable women, or woman in a potentially vulnerable state.

Papists and abusers do not have obvious tattoos on their foreheads to say that they are dangerous to women, any more than a trans woman has a tattoo saying "harmless". They cannot easily be told apart at first sight. Better safe than sorry is a good watchword at that point, even leaving aside the one-in-five women who have been assaulted by a male person and may suffer trauma as a result, and all those women of religions (also a protected characteristic) which prohibit being alone with a male who is not a member of your family.

"Papists" is an obvious typo and Lord knows how it got in there. Please read Rapists.

This is my line.

Will including this person tacitly exclude any women from female single-sex spaces intended for women?

I've thought about it and I've thought about it, and I couldn't come up with any reason why we should care more about a space being inclusive to transwomen than that it should be inclusive to women, that didn't break down to my own internalised misogyny.

We've all heard about how important toilet access is to trans people I think. Well, of course it is. They're human beings. Toilet access is important for people's health, comfort and dignity.

The first problem is that women are also human beings. If any women don't feel safe when using public toilets, it has just as big an impact on their lives as it does the trans people.

So we've shifted the problem somewhere else, instead of creating facilities for the group who needed them.

The second problem is, it's not just about toilets. It's about things like single-sex hospital wards. I do not want women feeling uncomfortable and unsafe in hospital, because someone that looks like a man to them is in the next bed. I don't want sick women self-discharging from hospital because they felt unsafe.

If one woman says no, it shouldn't matter if 99 say yes. If her no doesn't matter, then we're saying that transwomen have more right to decide who goes in women's spaces than a woman does, if the woman gives the incorrect answer.

It's like a shared house. Suppose Dave wants to move into your house and 5 out of 6 people say yes. But the sixth, Peter, says no.

Does Dave's wish to move into the house really trump Peter's? It's Peter's house! Being kind to Dave and letting him move in necessitates being extremely unkind to Peter.

Thank you! Good explanations.

Ok so removing a penis is just an act to support Gender identity. They aren’t changing their sex as we know that is impossible so the argument in its very essence becomes void -
You cannot use a female single sex space even though you no longer have a penis because you are not a woman as per the legal definition (your sex recorded at birth).

I also thought about the other spaces, just because you don’t have your penis anymore doesn’t take away the fact you are (probably) stronger than 9/10 women and therefore shouldn’t be competing in say, women’s wrestling.

Rape counselling - again just bc you don’t have a penis doesn’t mean you aren’t identifiable as male born, therefore the vulnerable women may be sat opposite a noticeable masculine trans woman. Same with Healthcare - I may be offered a very lovely trans nurse who doesn’t have a penis, but I don’t know that - all I see is a trans woman and I don’t want that. I want a woman.

It makes sense a bit, I think.

I am ashamed to say I am late to the GC side, I don’t think we need GC as a tag because by its very nature feminism rebukes gender stereotypes- but it’s helpful for newbies to the TWAW debate, like myself.

I used to think “people should be able to say they are who they think they are”... and to an extent I still think live and let live....but you can’t can you, not when it’s my / our rights being erased. You can’t claim other cultures, why can you claim my sex. How can you come and take the space specifically protected following a millennium of oppression. No, not happening.

I used to believe I’d be happy to call a trans woman a woman and I think I still would in societal settings - I’d not say “oh I met this great trans woman at lunch today” for instance. But when it comes to protected rights I feel very differently.

There’s so much to process but I’m glad to be learning - always been a feminist but I’ve never taken the time to explore what it really means. I am a bystander - or I have been until now!

@2020iscancelled, I first came across the expression 'your right to swing your fists around ends at someone else's nose' on this forum and it makes a lot of sense. There's a lot of mischaracterisation of GC feminism (or 'feminism' as it is better called, as you say!) as a controlling, overly-dogmatic, 'bio-essentialist' ideology, when really it's just that - someone else's right to dress and behave in the way that feels most comfortable for them should not infringe on the safety and dignity of anyone else, with a particular awareness of how women's safety is so often under threat.

I used to believe I’d be happy to call a trans woman a woman and I think I still would in societal settings

Another thing I looked into after finding this forum was seeing how many public figures (e.g. Germaine Greer, Jordan Peterson) denounced for their 'harmful transphobia' are people who have clearly stated they're prepared to do this - by using preferred pronouns etc - out of politeness. When you see how viciously these figures are treated on the basis of their 'transphobia' (there's a lot more you could criticise JP for, and GG isn't perfect either, though she is an important feminist) it really hammers home how aggressive and controlling the trans rights movement is, in comparison to gay rights. (A reminder for those at the back who need to hear it again - the movement is not the community it purports to represent.)

As far as I know I have never "misgendered" any of the many trans people I know, however tempted I may have been on occasion to call out some bit of loathsome entitled misogynistic behaviour, or to tell one of them they was behaving like a rather nasty man. But it can be difficult in some cases.

It's similar to the way that anyone getting her pension used to get described as a sweet little old lady, more or less and as far as the media were concerned. Horrible toads suddenly becoming lovable overnight was total cobblers; and a nasty man is likely, I feel, to remain a nasty person whatever he may also identify as being.

Well yeah - insert any stereotype of gender expectations.

@AskingQuestionsAllTheTime

Sex is a protected characteristic, and single sex spaces, including hospital wards, rape crisis centres, changing rooms and public lavatories, are mandated as single sex. Not single gender: in law, gender is not actually defined as far as I know, and it is hard to see how it could be since it deals entirely with what an individual feels rather than with objective fact.

I just wanted to pick up on a couple of points of legal detail here (not to get into a general argument on the implications, as I’m pretty much resigned to the fact that i will never see eye to eye with the majority of people on this board).

As far as I’m aware, neither sex not gender are defined anywhere in law - in fact, the way the terms are used in legislation suggests a degree of confusion about what the difference between them is (the Gender Recognition Act says: “Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).”

Also, the existence of single sex services is permitted by an exception to the general non-discrimination principle under the Equality Act, rather than being a direct consequence of the fact that sex is a protected characteristic. The starting point is that you cannot discriminate against a person because of their sex, so you could not exclude a man simply because he is a man - however, you can depart from that if it is a proportionate means of pursuing a legitimate aim, and there are various specific provisions expanding on this is the context of single sex spaces etc.

In other words the law says males should not be in spaces which are mandated as being for females only. Got it. Thanks.

Not exactly; it provides a number of specific exceptions to the prohibition on sex discrimination, in each case subject to the condition that single sex provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The broader issue I was trying to bring out is that the confusion and uncertainty about the effect of the law in this area is exacerbated by the fact that legislation does not provide clear definitions of sex and gender, and in places uses the terms interchangeably. I think this is a problem for all of us, regardless of our views on the practical/social/moral issues.

The broader issue I was trying to bring out is that the confusion and uncertainty about the effect of the law in this area is exacerbated by the fact that legislation does not provide clear definitions of sex and gender, and in places uses the terms interchangeably. I think this is a problem for all of us, regardless of our views on the practical/social/moral issues.

The problems have really come about due to the misleading interpretation of the legislation in the EHRC guidance. Ann Sinnott is taking this to judicial review, so we may have some more clarity once this goes to court.

uncommongroundmedia.com/the-2010-equality-act-is-being-undermined-by-official-guidance/

As far as I’m aware, neither sex not gender are defined anywhere in law

Sex is defined in the Equality Act as a "female of any age" or a "male of any age". Gender reassignment as a protected characteristic is defined in terms of "transsexual people". Obviously the GRA muddies the water in terms of the sex characteristic.

I think this is a problem for all of us, regardless of our views on the practical/social/moral issues.

I agree with this, if we are talking about reasonable people who want to balance rights. As it is, it benefits extremist TRAs who favour zero gatekeeping or restrictions.

Not exactly; it provides a number of specific exceptions to the prohibition on sex discrimination, in each case subject to the condition that single sex provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

But in some cases this risks discrimination against males who do not have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Males with it but no GRC are legally male for the EA2010. So it's not as clear cut as you imply.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Sex is defined in the Equality Act as a "female of any age" or a "male of any age". Gender reassignment as a protected characteristic is defined in terms of "transsexual people". Obviously the GRA muddies the water in terms of the sex characteristic.

Could you point me to the relevant provision in the EA please? I looked at the index in schedule 28 but that only points me to s11 which says something different

Something as absolutely basic to the species as the two sexes, male and female, man and woman, has never been defined in UK law because (as with eg water) everyone in the entire world knew exactly what each word meant. No judge has ever asked "what is a man?" as a judge once asked "what is a beatle?", in order to get a definition into the public record, because that has not been needed.

Legislation since Thatcher got rid of the department whose business was to draft unambiguous law has been something of a mess, requiring the courts to straighten it out.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

But in some cases this risks discrimination against males who do not have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Males with it but no GRC are legally male for the EA2010. So it's not as clear cut as you imply.

I thought that having a GRC was irrelevant for the purposes of the EA? The question of how the GRA interacts with sex discrimination under the EA seems to be one of the key areas of legal uncertainty