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!

I'd love to see a reference that states biological sex is only referring to reproduction and "gametes". Every biology source I've found refers to "chromosomal sex", "hormonal sex", etc. I've never seen a reputable source - not one in the last couple of years shoe horned in by gender critical people please - that says biological sex is only equal to "gametes". The Trump administration tried to define people's sex by biology, and they didn't propose gametes, they proposed sex assigned at birth and "genetic tests" to determine anyone who appealed. Thousands of scientists objected, including Nobel prize winning biologists and geneticists. Biological sex isn't one characteristic, it's a set of characteristics. not-binary.org/statement/ If you have to ignore what posters have actually posted to make your point, or use an organisation with an agenda to support it rather than peer reviewed science then you really don't have a point to make!

And we'll gloss over the ludicrous attempt at humour - the Trump reference was a joke, wasn't it?

Given that I've quoted the sections of the act and linked to it... You're welcome to dispute my interpretation but I've put out the actual wording of the law

Please see my later post and engage with the comparator point.

The “actual wording of the law” is often capable of more than one interpretation. This is why lawyers are very busy. You have missed the vital comparison aspect of any claim for direct discrimination.

@BlackWaveComing

The minute a TRA provides more, on one of these threads, than fallacies, circular logic and offense, I'll pay attention.

Until then, it's a waste of women's time engaging.

Yes, I quite agree. It's all just the same old same old. Meanwhile, there was a rather important court case today.

@ArabellaScott

Ah, I see, okay. HRT is used to refer to treatment women have, usually post-menopausally. These are 'replacing' hormones that women have, hence the 'R'.

You're talking about people taking what are usually called 'cross-sex' hormones. This is where the confusion comes from.

And yes, it may affect secondary sexual characteristics. But not sex. We are in agreement, so. What other kind of 'sex' do you recognise than biological sex?

Secondary sexual characteristics are biological sex, they are one of the aspects of biological sex. Chromosomal sex is another, genetic sex another. Biological sex isn't seen as one thing, the current craze in gender critical circles seems to be to say "gametes" is the only aspect of biological sex that counts. Biologists disagree as they use the terms I quoted above, I didn't invent them, trans people didn't invent them. scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q="chromosomal+sex"+OR+"genetic+sex"+OR+"hormonal+sex"&btnG=

@PheasantPlucker1

Hang on, chickens can do what now?? Im off to google that one!

Can pheasants do the same?

@CuriousaboutSamphire

You're welcome to dispute my interpretation but I've put out the actual wording of the law. We all would dispute your interpretation, for the reasons I've outlined a few times now!

Yes, I don’t think you realise the complexity and nuance of discrimination law @bigotryisbad . Read the case I mentioned and then we can discuss further.

@merrymouse

Or you could equally say that pregnant women cannot be gansayed, ever! Or BAME people; or old peole.

This is why sex discrimination is generally illegal but a woman can’t become a Catholic priest, but although religious belief is protected a B&B can’t refuse customers because they are gay.

There is nothing new about the concept of conflicting rights in Equalities and human rights legislation.

Exactly, and if you remember the Northern Ireland baker's case there was a massive debate - not all gay people held the same view on this and there was no suggestion that those who had rational, but differing viewpoints, were evil bigots.

@RedDogsBeg

That's why feminists (At least the ones I know) define woman as an identity, as to be a woman you don't need a particular biology or to follow a particular role. You are one if you say you are.

Pray tell what is this particular role? There must be some defining criteria for it.

Re-posting in case you missed it OP, can you please answer this, thanks.

Yes, I don’t think you realise the complexity and nuance of discrimination law

I think the concept of what lawyers actually do for a living has similarly eluded them

@CuriousaboutSamphire - "And we'll gloss over the ludicrous attempt at humour - the Trump reference was a joke, wasn't it?"

No the Trump admin literally tried to shoe horn in a definition of "sex" by biology in US law. Part of their ongoing attacks on trans people. A diverse group of scientists signed that statement I linked (not-binary.org/statement), 2,600 of them. Including Nobel Prize winning biologists and geneticists. Why are the very top scientists in genetics and biology not agreeing with Trump, that sex is defined at birth, and any outliers can be easily dealt with by genetic testing? They say sex is a spectrum of characteristics that are not easily defined. That linking biological sex to the social categories of "man" and "woman" is scientifically wrong and harmful?

Biological sex isn't one characteristic, it's a set of characteristics

Well, I'm not a biologist, but this sounds reasonable. And we have sex characteristics from either one of two sexes, two sets of characteristics if you prefer. It's not a pick n mix, though. Changing some secondary sex characteristics don't mean you move from one set to the other.

the current craze in gender critical circles seems to be to say "gametes" is the only aspect of biological sex that counts again ruined by your misunderstanding and a natty list of papers that don't say what you want them to!

@RedDogsBeg - "Pray tell what is this particular role? There must be some defining criteria for it."

Sorry I obviously wasn't clear, I'm saying there isn't a particular role that defines "woman". Despite patriarchal groups claiming there is, and they base this on "biology".

Secondary sexual characteristics are biological sex, they are one of the aspects of biological sex. Chromosomal sex is another, genetic sex another. Biological sex isn't seen as one thing, the current craze in gender critical circles seems to be to say "gametes" is the only aspect of biological sex that counts. Biologists disagree as they use the terms I quoted above, I didn't invent them, trans people didn't invent them.

No not a craze. Basic biology.

It starts with the chromosomes. Anything that happens differently thereafter is either a disorder of sexual development or another anomaly.

Brain sex remains sexed no matter what happens.

The gonadal hormones can generate sexual dimorphisms in the brain, but sex differences can, in some cases, be detected before the gonads have differentiated. Further evidence for a direct role of the XX or XY genotype on the brain comes from mice in which the testis-determining Sry gene has been removed from the Y chromosome and replaced on an autosome. In this way, it is possible to generate 'female' mice with an XY− genotype, and 'male' mice with an XXSry genotype. The brains of XX mice differ in several respects from those of XY mice, regardless of the presence or absence of the Sry gene.

And that has a bit about birds hence the chicken above.

www.nature.com/articles/nrn1494

What a wealth of knowledge is shown by posters in FWR. You are all amazing and have the patience of the saints.

Which is why GC women reject the idea of gender roles or anything else based in the patriarchy built ideas of sex stereotypes!

Why would anyone accept an oppressors definition of them?

oolOn apologies if I have misunderstood, but qre you argueing we cant actually define what sex is?

We cant define who is male, and who is female?

Like, no feminist defines woman as an identity. Women have identities that they create for themselves - there are uncountable numbers of these identities because they are as unique as every human. Just like men.

Women are women because they are adult human females.

@ArabellaScott

Biological sex isn't one characteristic, it's a set of characteristics

Well, I'm not a biologist, but this sounds reasonable. And we have sex characteristics from either one of two sexes, two sets of characteristics if you prefer. It's not a pick n mix, though. Changing some secondary sex characteristics don't mean you move from one set to the other.

Humans have characteristics that cross all of these though. So biological "females" typically have a "female" hormone profile, note I said typically. However plenty of women - or adult human females if you like - have male typical hormonal sex. The study into elite women athletes showed some women with far more T than elite male athletes. Some elite male athletes in the female typical range of T!

Hence we say sex is a spectrum, as humans can and do have hormonal, genetic, chromosomal sex characteristics that don't match their assignment at birth, or their identity. Humans are amazingly diverse.

I've never seen a reputable source - not one in the last couple of years shoe horned in by gender critical people please - that says biological sex is only equal to "gametes"

That is what sex is. Differentiated development to enable reproduction.

As humans who have developed contraceptives we can choose not to reproduce, but because we have different reproductive roles, females bear the greater burden.

That is the fundamental reality that users of mumsnet tend to have to face. It’s one of the key reasons that women can experience direct and indirect discrimination and need specific rights and services.

the deletion criteria on this thread is utterly baffling when compared to what is left to stand.

Yes people base gender roles on biology and that's what I think is wrong

You can't run from sex but we could throw out gender roles and make lots of people happier

@testingmitb

What a wealth of knowledge is shown by posters in FWR. You are all amazing and have the patience of the saints.

I think some posters forget that the people on the other side of t'internet might have real loves that involve complex things like science, physiology, law etc.

They just leap in and pontificate, expecting to be taken at face value. The best/worst quote things and then can't explain why and then get upset when a MN poster can and does explain where they went wrong!

I stick at it because a few years ago it was a discussion like this that got me here and opened my eyes to what I was actually saying when I said that transwomen were women! It was really dfficult becaus eit felt like I was being disloyal to specific freinds. Fotrtunately, when I got up the courgae to sicuss it with them, they agreed. They did not physically change sex when they obtained their GRCs - not even after all the surgery they had!

@WeeBisom

"That's why feminists (At least the ones I know) define woman as an identity, as to be a woman you don't need a particular biology or to follow a particular role. You are one if you say you are."

But what are they saying they are? They must have SOME idea of the thing they are identifying as? Or is it literally the case that "woman" is a uniquely defined concept for every single person, such that it can be whatever they want it to be? So if I define woman as 'a small furry creature with four legs' my dog is thereby a woman, and my definition is to be respected? And you might define a woman as 'anyone who enjoys hot dogs with mustard' in which case anyone with that particular taste is also a woman?

This is the thing that confuses me. You are one if you say you are - VERY few concepts in the world are like this. I"m not a royal if I say I am.I'm not black if I say I am. I'm not rich, or 8 years old, or blind, or a cat, or beautiful, or thin, or a member of the Labour Party, or an astronaut JUST because I say I am. We acknowledge that in the world membership of categories have conditions that have to be met. I can't be thin if I weigh 500 lbs. I can't be blind if I have 20/20 vision. I can't be 8 years old if my birth year is 1950. So why is 'woman' magically the only concept where the mere utterance 'I am one' makes it so?

I would also question why this concept is even useful or so hotly contested. If 'woman' is entirely idiosyncratic, then why have that concept at all? There is nothing which usually ties the concept of 'woman' together. Every single human might qualify as a woman. So what is the point?

Exactly this. If the concept of "woman" is so meaningless why call yourself one in the first place?

I think this is why these "debates" always feel so exhausting. You're on the one hand told these things are so important that not recognising someone's identity is akin to violence but at the same time it doesn't mean anything and you could just as easily call yourself an apple. It's like trying to mentally construct a square circle.

Hence you have to love that word. Give it a cuddle. So badly abused!

Hence we say sex is a spectrum No, we really don't!