Mumsnet says Trans Rights are Human Rights!

[ool0n]

I always assumed Mumsnet were not the biggest supporters of trans rights, given the stories about them. But this is a good statement on Twitter, "of course trans people exist, and of course trans rights are human rights"
twitter.com/MumsnetTowers/status/1367071394870276099

Also I thought using terms like cisgender or cis were against the rules, this isn't true either -
twitter.com/MumsnetTowers/status/1367080005193318401

So can I get a trans rights are human rights, trans women are women, trans men are men and non binary people are valid!

You equated trans people's right to exist with religious belief with the inference that you could choose not to believe in trans people's existence.

You know this makes no sense right? Of course transwomen exist, saying that we don't believe transwomen are actually literally the same as biological women doesn't cause TW to blink out of existence. We don't have magical powers.

Threads come up on the topic every day and anyone arguing the TWAW side will be in the minority here and gets swamped with counter-arguments.

Ah yes, those damn pesky counter-arguments, they really are a pain in the arse...

Nobody here denies trans peoples right to exist

That is hyperbole, designed to - what?

Identify as whatever you want. But you cant control other peoples recognition of biology and you cant control how much weight they place on that biology.

I've been waiting for years to hear what makes transwomen, women, other than a proclivitiy towards the "feminine", and feeling that they aren't a "real" man.

I've also yet to hear in what ways they aren't male, that doesn't involve the word "feelings".

Imo transwomen should embrace who they are, as they are, and telling anyone who doesn't like it, to go fuck. They may be fabulous, but they aren't women.

I've always said toxic masculinity is the root of all this.

I am a man, that's me asserting my gender identity as I define it. If in some weird transhumanist prank I woke up tomorrow and was in a body that is typically considered "a woman's" I wouldn't identify as a woman. I'm a man, and that identity is separate from my body's characteristics.

Ah, then you see that's the difference between you and me. I am a woman now, and if in some weird transhumanist prank I woke up tomorrow and was in a body that is typically considered "a man's" I wouldn't identify as a woman, I'd be a man and (to the extent that I identify at all) I'd identify as a man. And I'd get on with figuring out the business of being a man, living as a man, in a male body, as a man in a gendered society, pros and cons and all. And how do I know that? Because I've already done it once, I figured out and came to terms with being a girl and then a woman, and over the years I've come to terms with a lquite a few other bodily and cognitive changes with social implications. So I'm pretty sure I could do it again. Like most human brains mine is quite plastic and has shown itself to be quite good at adapting to these physical realities and managing their social implications. You may not be, but that's just you.

Trans people do exist now and we can characterise their disjunction between their identities and their bodies and we have.

Who is this "we"? None of the trans people I knew ever characterised it like that. Well, one of them did, she was sure I would feel exactly the same way she did, but she did tend to put people in boxes. She was sure I was femme for example though I'm not even lesbian. So I'd trust my own judgment over hers. Or yours. Sorry.

Like hell it is. Why create a new word to describe something that already has a perfectly good word?

....I think transwomens rights should be a subsection of mens rights, but that doesn't mean I hate or can't feel empathy for trans people (or men in general)

This is what UK law says, and what most people here think. Upholding trans peoples Rights - including their sex based Rights.

*and tell

You equated trans people's right to exist with religious belief with the inference that you could choose not to believe in trans people's existence.

Literally nobody thinks that trans people don't exist. Nobody is denying their right to exist at all. The poster wasn't equating the existence of trans people with religious belief. It was pretty clear the poster was equating the belief that TWAW, or that a person can change sex, with religious belief. Not the same thing at all.

[quote nancywhitehead]OP you're fighting a good fight on here but I fear you are unlikely to succeed in swaying those who have already made up their minds.

There are lots of people on mumsnet who have very strong opinions on this and I think feel quite threatened by the whole debate. Threads come up on the topic every day and anyone arguing the TWAW side will be in the minority here and gets swamped with counter-arguments.

I don't get involved in back and forths for that reason as it can feel like a bit of a pile on. But for anyone who is curious and open to at least hearing another opinion to the mumsnet norm, this article is interesting.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/10/trans-rights-feminist-letter-rebecca-solnit[/quote]
Yeah! Funny that. On a forum about womens rights!

And the very fact that the artucle posits, in its headline, the idea that 'cis women' will be made outcasts fromt heir own sex is all you really need to show that womens rights need protecting!

MoJ court case, today, might help you see why we shout so much, and fear so much!

[quote ool0n]"'Trans people' don't have a Right in law to use these spaces. That's the truth."

You can believe the EA 2010 doesn't give trans people the right to use correctly sexed/gendered spaces. Fact is UK law works on precedent, and there is very little, but what we have is this. So until overturned trans people do indeed have the right to use the spaces that match their acquired sex/gender. And in practice every trans person I know has always used the correct spaces, for longer than I've been alive, and will continue to do so.
www.lawcentres.org.uk/policy/news/news/kirklees-law-centre-wins-landmark-transgender-discrimination-case[/quote]
Actually you are misrepresenting the law there. It's a lot fuzzier than either "transpeople can always use the opposite sex's facilities" and "transpeople must never use the other sex's facilities".

The case you've linked to involved a transwoman who had undergone full medical transition 20 years ago. Seems fair enough that she should be permitted access to the female toilets. Doesn't mean that every other transperson would be.

Interestingly, given the distinction you've drawn between gender identity and gender expression, a lot of weight seems to be given to expression and NOT identity when it comes to applying single sex exemptions. See this extract from the EHRC statutory code: “Service providers should be aware that where a transsexual person is visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable from a non-transsexual person of that gender, they should normally be treated according to their acquired gender, unless there are strong reasons to the contrary.”

You equated trans people's right to exist with religious belief with the inference that you could choose not to believe in trans people's existence

At the risk of making it onto your naughty list, that’s not what’s being said at all. Nobody here believes trans people don’t exist. We just know that humans are male or female. Having a GRC might change your sex/gender for some purposes (initially one of its primary functions was to avoid legalising gay marriage) but it’s a legal accommodation, it doesn’t make it literally true.

Believing that humans can change sex is very like a religious belief to me, because it relies on an internal essence - gender identities and souls seem similar in that they’re only knowable to the people who have them. I am perfectly fine living in a society where people are wholly free to believe those things, but I do object when I’m compelled to act as if they are material fact. No matter how fervently people believe in them, nobody has the right to compel a belief on others.

SevenSilverrings

Before I get lost in the rest of this thread, this 'labelling' is something that I find very sad and unnecessary. I wish your son all the best in the future and that he gets to wear and do exactly what he wants, when he wants.

To be honest @Lepetitpiggy i take the view that if people want to call themselves Cis, fine go ahead. However, those same people should respect the requests of those who don't want to be called cisgender or Cis and acknowledge that fact.

There is no need for Cis, however and personally I cannot stand it.I'm sure that someone did some excellent refutation of the word but I can't think for the life of me where I saw it, other sue I'd send you a link.

Was there a web page where people could get their gender assigned?

Could someone please repost the link in that case? I would like to know what gender I have.

I did a brain test once which said I was 70% male brain, I hope this is a different page and actually gives me a gender?

You equated trans people's right to exist with religious belief with the inference that you could choose not to believe in trans people's existence.

Trans people obviously exist, and people who believe in gender identity obviously exist.

I don't believe in God, but that doesn't mean that Christians don't exist or that their beliefs aren't protected per the EA 2010.

However, in 2020, I am also free to ignore Christian beliefs in my everyday life and to argue that God doesn't exist.

There are also sometimes threads on Mumsnet where people argue over the existence of God. However, Christians are generally more willing to explain their belief in God than people on this thread have been to explain gender.

I am buying som Soreen banana loaf, it looks delicious. And it is vegan!

BigotryisBad

At no point die I mention transpeoples right to exist

I said believing transwomen are women is a belief.

Why are you so desperate to find transphobia you are making arguably transphobic quotes and claiming others said them?

Just want to check my understanding so happy to be created ...I thought that under the Equalities act a person has the same protections for gender identity as the sex they're born with, is that right? You have to have a GRC to be classed as another sex? So unless a transwoman has one they have no other entitlement than a man?

I think they also do some apple cake bars. I’m holding off in case they wuss out because of the bullying.

@CuriousaboutSamphire

Just in case anyone is still reading

Actually, this isn't the truth. It is an equal truth to what you are about to assert

There is a prohibitition under s13 of the Equality Act which makes all discrimination on grounds of Gender reassignment unlawful. as it does for ALL OF THE PROTECTED CHARACTERISTICS!

Claiming that the law doesn't protect the people that it was expressly designed to protect is an intrinsically transphobic position. And claiming that one section overrides any other is incorrect. Specifically as you are doing it again implies misogyny!

At the moment the competing characteristics have not been through the courts, which would mean a wholesale re-writing of the EA2010. As it is each case that comes up sets a precedent but does not overrride or change the EA2010.

Again, see the MoJ in the courts, today!

Everything in my post is verifiably true and published on Legislation.gov.uk:

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents

The prohibition from discrimination means that it is unlawful to discriminate against a trans person and refuse them access to spaces or services. Applying that protection does not mean that any other person with a protected characteristic is discriminated against.

You would have to separately argue a basis of discrimination and that the Equality Act 2010 itself is discriminatory if you wish to make that argument. Merely asserting it and claiming "truth" does not justify your transphobic position.

You will, I'm sure, know that the act also confirms the test required to exclude a trans person from the appropriate space:

28(1) A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to gender reassignment discrimination, only because of anything done in relation to a matter within sub-paragraph (2) if the conduct in question is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

That test is used throughout the act to deal with the situation that arrises if rights were to come into conflict.

Attempting a blanket ban on all trans people as an entire group without cause or evidence is transphobic.

In fact, there has never been a successful use of the exemption in clause 28 because no court has ever found a the exclusion of trans people to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

So if TWAW and TMAM. Then I am cis woman? But if transwomen are transwomen and transmen are transmen then I would 'just' be a woman. That's just changing the labels but not actually achieving anything. It's also a bit rude as I don't feel that I have a gender identity, so not sure anyone else has the right to presume I do, or label me in a way that makes everyone else presume I do.

Of course trans rights are human rights. I have never seen anyone on here say that they weren't.

I'm finding this thread really hard to keep up with, I'm not sure if that is because I have no idea what a gender identity is and noone will tell me. Or if I'm just a bit thick. Or maybe because all the recipes made me hangry 😁

I know we’re not doing cake recipes, but I really hope you’ve got enough cake and/or gin to cope with this afternoons shift, Rowanmumsnet!

@BarbaraofKent

You equated trans people's right to exist with religious belief with the inference that you could choose not to believe in trans people's existence.

Not believing that transwomen are women does not mean that you don't believe that transpeople exist? You just don't believe they are actually women.

That's like saying you don't believe that Christians exist because you personally don't believe in God

Yes.

And 'transphobic' = 'blasphemy'