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!

But the fact is that these norms are a part in our society and we can't erase them, so until society changes we just have to accept them as part of people's lived experiences. There is not really any point saying "but we shouldn't have gender stereotypes!" when in fact, we do.

Except women have erased many gender stereotypes. 100 years ago women couldn’t vote on equal terms with men. Access to education and employment was restricted. We have made massive leaps forward.

Why would anyone accept gender stereotypes? We aren’t forced to accept any other kind of bigoted stereotype.

It doesn't matter what definition I provide, you won't be satisfied. So I'll stick with this one: a woman is an adult human who identifies as a woman

Born female? You grow into a woman.
Trans woman? Oh look you're a woman.
Nonbinary people sometimes interact with the identity of woman too but I think we'll leave it there for now. But this definition is sort of a catch-all. It's probably not fool-proof though. I'm not exactly infallible

Are there any other categories (of anything) that have such an elusive, shifting, amorphous non-definitive definition? Any at all that you can give as examples?

Or is it only women?

@merrymouse

But the fact is that these norms are a part in our society and we can't erase them, so until society changes we just have to accept them as part of people's lived experiences. There is not really any point saying "but we shouldn't have gender stereotypes!" when in fact, we do.

Except women have erased many gender stereotypes. 100 years ago women couldn’t vote on equal terms with men. Access to education and employment was restricted. We have made massive leaps forward.

Why would anyone accept gender stereotypes? We aren’t forced to accept any other kind of bigoted stereotype.

Well I do agree and I think it would be lovely if we had a gender-neutral world with no stereotypes.

But it's just not the world. Maybe if we had that world we wouldn't have trans people... who knows? But we don't have that world right now.

Trans women exist; they are part of "women".

What part of 'women' are transwomen?

That would be entirely up to you as a person to explore within yourself

Yep, done all that. Questioned what it is that makes me, me. What is it that the world sees when it looks at me. What does my biological reality mean for me. What is women’s place in the world. Why don’t I fit with what women are “supposed” to want, think, do be.

Still nothing. I am a woman because that’s what every xx cell in my body means. I don’t have a gender identity, because as a feminist for the last thirty odd years, I’ve been quite busy trying to dismantle out dated gender stereotypes. Woman is what I am, not who.

I see the name calling (“t*rf”) has already started. Very disappointing. I guess you’d call me that- why do you hate me? (It’s prob been deleted, but don’t worry, I have screenshots!) Why do you, in the pursuit of social justice, feel that it’s Ok to demonise groups of women like that?

It is really very simple,
Human Rights are for all humans.
I am a woman and I find the slur cis incredibly offensive.
Sex based Rights are determined by biological sex, not by gender.

Is there not a medical danger associated with the TWAW mantra?

There are pathologies associated to both sexes based on biology (prostate cancer/cervical cancer for example).

If you deny your biology surely you run the risk of undiagnosed problems, which would otherwise be flagged and targeted?

@loretta81

This board is an echo chamber. Not all women find the term cis offensive, and you can be both a feminist and a supporter of TWAW. (Just not here, it seems )

You can - but really you should explain why. It’s an echo chamber because nobody ever explains what TWAW means without acceptance of sexism or a circular definition.

Option 1) means it’s impossible to explain why women shouldn’t be more responsible for homeschooling during the pandemic (it just comes naturally!) and option 2) isn’t a definition at all.

Exactly.

TransRightsRCool
What gender do you refer yourself as?

Apologies, I realise this was ages ago, but it was in answer to my question on how to identify my gender, and I felt it would be rude to ignore.

In answer to the question, I don't refer to myself as having a gender, but as having a sex. I am not comfortable with my sex, sometimes I hate being my sex. Iwould defnitely be described as non gender conforming. Am I trans?

@tellmewhentheLangshiplandscoz

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?

Generally, yes, but this is an effect of the rule rather than the rule itself.

The comparator in a discrimination case is someone in as near the same position as possible to the claimant, but who does not share the protected characteristic in question.

So for a person with the PC of gender reassignment who is seeking access to single sex services or spaces, the comparator is a person without the PC of gender reassignment and obviously that person's admittance or refusal from single sex services or spaces will depend on their sex. If the person with the PC of gender reassignment is a tw who does not have a GRC then they are legally male and it can be shown that they are not being discriminated against by being treated in the same way as the comparator.

Sometimes though, the correct comparator happens to be a woman.

For example in this case where a tw was attempting to get breast augmentation surgery provided by the NHS:

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2010/1162.html

(not sure this is the final judgment, they really pushed it as high as they could go but the claimant lost anyway)

The correct comparator in this case was a person without the PC of gender reassignment who was seeking breast augmentation on the NHS - and obviously that's going to be a woman. This doesn't mean TWAW any more than if a tw was fired for being trans and all the possible comparators (other employees at the workplace) happened to be female.

I think the claimant in the above case would have done far better to argue that the NHS treatment offered for trans people was discriminatory on the grounds of sex (double mastectomies for tm are funded) but that would have involved acknowledging sex ...

I am female woman. I was born with a female woman’s vagina, not a modification. I have given birth to two children and I still have a female woman’s vagina. I will always be a female because that is how I was born.

Tomorrow I might decide to identify as a f’ing kangaroo, but I won’t actually become a kangaroo, because I will always be a female. And that is the beauty of biology.

Well I do agree and I think it would be lovely if we had a gender-neutral world with no stereotypes.

It would be idyllic and is something to aspire to. In the meantime, we do have rights that work to remove the effects of a millennia of discrimination against women and girl's based on the their sexed bodies.

Why do people who do not have the same sexed bodies feel it is their right to access those rights for their benefit instead of working for their own rights that do not conflict with women and girl's rights?

And why does a segment of activists, because not all activists agree with those activists, believe that to discuss the conflicts between the groups is transphobic?

TransRightsRCool

"Hey, scientists have discovered that some people are actually jzqiks!"
"Interesting, what's a jzqik?"
"Oh, anyone who identifies as a jzqik"

Do you see the problem?

@DreamEvenBigger
Who knows. Maybe I’m a man, but I don’t realise it 🧐🤷‍♀️

Of course you are. So is the person upthread who looked for their gender identity in their pockets. If you are wearing clothes with pockets you likely are a man.

You can - but really you should explain why. It’s an echo chamber because nobody ever explains what TWAW means without acceptance of sexism or a circular definition. I think that my earlier assertion that you cannot be both a feminist and a supporter of TWAW shows it isn't really an echo chamber, let alone a bloody hive mind!

Hey - we love recipes (we host loads of 'em) but not so keen if recipe chat is a derailing tactic or a way to try to ensure that people with opposing views get frustrated and go away
When we say we want people of all viewpoints to feel welcome to post here, we really do mean it. So we'd really appreciate it if recipe-chat wasn't used as a way to discourage people from posting. Thanks

Late to the thread, but have you recently changed the guidelines?
As this is definitely not my experience, and is still mostly left to stand (has got slightly better lately I admit, but not by much)

@nancywhitehead: thanks for clarifying. I do wonder why so many gender theorists deny that stereotypes have anything at all to do with gender identity. You say that it would be great if we had a gender neutral world with no stereotypes but unfortunately we do. I don't deny that sexist stereotypes exist, but that doesn't mean, surely, that we should tie the very definition of 'woman' into sexist stereotypes. My concern is that the new gender based definition of woman appears to be saying 'you ARE a woman if these gender stereotypes apply to you. This is regressive and backwards.

What I say is that being a woman literally has nothing to do with stereotypes - the only qualifier for being a woman is that you are a human female, and that encompasses 50% of the human race who can express themselves in any way they like and be anyone they want to be.

@AbsintheFriends is bang on.

It is so hard to have a real debate when one side seemingly can't define their terms:

• woman
• gender identity

(And by define I mean using a non circular definition).

@MrsHusky

prefacing this with the fact this is just my personal opinion, i am aware not everyone will agree with my viewpoint, but its one garnered simply from being part of a large social scene that is LGBTQIA+ heavy, with the whole rainbow of sexualities and gender identities and a lot of conversations with people.

our Sex is biological.
Our Gender is mental/personal/ephemeral.

When we are born we are assumed to be the sex our genitals present as most closely. As that sex, it is assumed, as a child (For most parents) that their child will identify as the same Gender as our apparent biological sex.

However, as we mature and gain sense of 'self' for some people that simply doesn't flow. For some people, regardless of reason, when they think of themselves, their sense of 'self' doesn't match the societal accepted binary of their sex's matching Gender identity.

For some people, its to the point that they feel a strong disconnect between their sense of their Self and the genitals they possess, which is where Trans-gender comes into it.

There is a vast spectrum between Cis and Trans (using the words just as a descriptor) and most people will sit somewhere on that line, and todays society allows for that gender fluidity to be matched in how we present ourselves outwardly in our daily lives.

The vast majority of people who do not identify as the same gender as their outward biological sex, just want to get on with their lives and be accepted as the gender that matches their inward sense of self.

Absolutely.

The problem is when some people insist that gender identity be prioritised over biology, in policy and law, even when it's the BODY that matters

I would like those who say TWAW to explain why this should be so.
We here on the FWR board only see how it hurts us.
If someone could explain the counter argument, that there are no harms to women in girls, we can all pack up and go home.

Also, here's why saying 'a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman' is a faulty definition. The purpose of a definition is to enable me to pick out that thing in the world and disambiguate it from other things. A definition includes properties, or characteristics, of that thing which enable me to uniquely pick it out among all the other things. They are descriptive. If you say ' a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman' this doesn't help me know what, exactly, a woman is. What are these people identifying as? If I want to know if I'm a woman, what kinds of characteristics and properties should I have?

Well I do agree and I think it would be lovely if we had a gender-neutral world with no stereotypes.

But it's just not the world. Maybe if we had that world we wouldn't have trans people... who knows? But we don't have that world right now.

And that is why feminists are fighting for it. Do you suggest that we should just accept being paid less, having less political representation, losing out on employment opportunities to men, being belittled and spoken over, and having our legitimate fear of violence and sexual assault minimised by men who just don't get it? Because... that's the way the world is?