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 have addressed the reason why rights for trans people, which have existed for 80 years (more than all of our lifetimes) and which have been working without any evidence of systematic issue for all that time, don't conflict with women's rights.

How about we address the court case that happened earlier today.

How can a policy that specifically caused 7 women (and that's just the women we know about) in the last few years to be raped/sexually assaulted by male people not be in conflict with the rights of women?

Without that specific policy from the MoJ that wouldn't have happened to those women.

How is that not a conflict?

It can only not be a conflict if women don't matter.

A qualia kind of thing?

Trans healthcare is gatekept by psychologists who will insist trans people act stereotypically as a man or woman to get treatment. That's a real scandal, informed consent for healthcare and self identification gets rid of this institutional enforcement of stereotypes.

You seem to be mixing up the GRA with treatment for gender dysphoria. How would self-id help people who want treatment to change their bodies to resemble that of the opposite sex? What sort of people would really benefit from self-id?

[quote bigotryisbad]@ArabellaScott.

I quoted the exemption, in full, and explained why it wasn't relevant unless the requirements for it's use are met.[/quote]
You might well have done but the comparator to determine discrimination re a transwoman with the pc of Gender Reassignment is a male without the pc of Gender Reassignment.

The pcs of Sex and Gender Reassignment are two different things and Gender Reassignment does not confer the rights of the opposite sex.

733.This paragraph contains exceptions to the general prohibition of sex discrimination to allow the provision of single-sex services.
734.Single sex services are permitted where:
only people of that sex require it;
there is joint provision for both sexes but that is not sufficient on its own;
if the service were provided for men and women jointly, it would not be as effective and it is not reasonably practicable to provide separate services for each sex;
they are provided in a hospital or other place where users need special attention (or in parts of such an establishment);
they may be used by more than one person and a woman might object to the presence of a man (or vice versa); or
they may involve physical contact between a user and someone else and that other person may reasonably object if the user is of the opposite sex.
735.In each case, the separate provision has to be objectively justified.
736.These exceptions also cover public functions in respect of the “back-room” managerial, administrative and finance decisions which allow such single-sex services to be provided.
Background
737.This paragraph replaces some similar provisions that only covered public functions and some that applied to services in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. These exceptions have been extended to cover both services and public functions.
Examples
^738.These exceptions would allow:
a cervical cancer screening service to be provided to women only, as only women need the service;
a fathers’ support group to be set up by a private nursery as there is insufficient attendance by men at the parents’ group;
a domestic violence support unit to be set up by a local authority for women only but there is no men-only unit because of insufficient demand;
separate male and female wards to be provided in a hospital;
separate male and female changing rooms to be provided in a department store;
a massage service to be provided to women only by a female massage therapist with her own business operating in her clients’ homes because she would feel uncomfortable massaging men in that environment.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/20/7

@ArabellaScott

I agree, ool0n. The GRA is terrible law, badly defined. It should be scrapped.

The requirements for policing should be scrapped, are you saying the rights it enshrines should be scrapped too? Because those were forced on the UK government by the EU court of human rights- would sound a lot like you want to remove trans people's human rights, Arabella. Unfortunately the gender critical "women's declaration" does indeed call for those human rights to be scrapped, putting the UK on a par with anti-LGBT countries like Russia or Hungary. That's transphobia if ever I've seen it.

How can a policy that specifically caused 7 women (and that's just the women we know about) in the last few years to be raped/sexually assaulted by male people not be in conflict with the rights of women?

OP is not going to answer that Ova. it involves reality

Many people stormed the Capitol building in America because believed that the election had been stolen from Donald Trump. Why were they concerned when it so clearly hadn't been?

So all the people concerned over the impact of trans activism on Women's Rights are deluded and/or have been led astray - is that the point of your crass comparison? And yet when these issues get near a court, with impartial judgement, time after time the 'gender critical' view is vindicated.

I have addressed the reason why rights for trans people, which have existed for 80 years (more than all of our lifetimes) and which have been working without any evidence of systematic issue for all that time, don't conflict with women's rights.

You've 'addressed' it in the sense that you've written some words. These words have been refuted numerous times by numerous posters. Trans activism is in direct conflict with Women's Rights - in fact it seems to be the whole point of it a lot of the time.

But a TW's hormones won't be the same as a female's even with artifical hormones. So their hormonal sex will be that of a TW not a female.

I maintain biological sex is a set of characteristics, not one characteristic. I think I've done a pretty good job of demonstrating biologists in peer review refer to many characteristics of biological sex, not one.

Yes. We agree that sex is determined by considering hormones, chromosomes, gametes and other characteristics. I am not sure anyone here disagrees.

However, the aim of the human body is to reproduce. This very reliably sorts humans into the binary sexes. Of which there are just two. No more, no less.

So, maybe answer my other questions. What is the value by which makes a person more female than another?

What is the sex of the person that falls in the direct centre of the spectrum?

IVF, miscarriages, IUDs, endometriosis - all just mere details.

oolOn there are thousands of differences between males and females.

Literally, thousands. Hormones are just one. We can talk about "hormonal sex", but also accept hormones do not define sex, in the same way none of the other many, many differences define sex.

Ultimatly, chromosomes define sex.

Does that make sense?

Because those were forced on the UK government by the EU court of human rights

The main reason for the ECHR judgment in that case was to allow two people of the same sex to marry. The GRA is no longer needed for this purpose.

@OldCrone

Trans healthcare is gatekept by psychologists who will insist trans people act stereotypically as a man or woman to get treatment. That's a real scandal, informed consent for healthcare and self identification gets rid of this institutional enforcement of stereotypes.

You seem to be mixing up the GRA with treatment for gender dysphoria. How would self-id help people who want treatment to change their bodies to resemble that of the opposite sex? What sort of people would really benefit from self-id?

Treatment for gender dysphoria is transition, gatekeeping that by forcing trans people to meet a cis psychologists idea of what a man or woman should look like or act isn't treatment. The GRA says they need to "live as a man/woman" for two years, cis gatekeepers decide what that means. They decide it based on sexist, outdated, stereotypes.

Natural" hormones are produced in every level you can imagine, way bigger a variation than trans people will experience as their endocrinologist will keep them to tight limits - the typical or "normal" range for men and women. Again this is a very naturalistic fallacy sounding line of argument. Biologically their hormonal sex changes, nothing so far comes close to refuting that. The biological defn of hormonal sex is purely the levels in the persons bloodstream, where it came from isn't part of the defn.

Hang on a flaming minute.

What is it that transwomen take? Could you detail that please?

Personally I find it offensive when the argument is made that hormones determine sex.
If ‘sex is on a spectrum’ does that make me somehow less female because I experienced early menopause. Do not erase me to justify your belief that taking hormones changes your biological sex.

So what was my “hormonal sex” when I had to take GnRH treatment for endometriosis (also known as “puberty blockers”, fun fact) and ceased producing any sex hormones at all?

Was I male? Neuter? Still a woman? Because let me tell you, I’d have done anything to stop the pain, and if declaring myself a man while I didn’t make any sex hormones would do it, I’d have done it in a heartbeat.

Do you know what a luxury belief it is to be able to believe that you can theorise your way out of your sex?

I have addressed the reason why rights for trans people, which have existed for 80 years (more than all of our lifetimes)

Which laws are you suggesting that predate the GRA 2004 and the EA 2010 and deal with rights for trans people?

It is an interesting thought that trans people have apparently had many more rights than gay people whose very existence was illegal and punishable by imprisonment until 1967.

@PheasantPlucker1 -- "Ultimatly, chromosomes define sex."

Above people are saying "gametes" define sex, you say chromosomes. I say they both are sex characteristics and they can be in conflict. You can have "small gametes" or gonads, and be a woman, born a woman, socialised as a woman. You can have XY chromosomes and the same be true. There are a set of sex characteristics, not one property that globally defines if you are "male" or "female". Only your identity as male or female.

Nameitychangity

It is truly offensive to state that one person is more of a female than another, and based on what?

It is like stating a woman is no longer a woman after a hysterectomy!!

No! Just no! How can someone keep stating that sex takes into account a range of criteria and then neglect to mention just how a female can be more female than another?

The GRA says they need to "live as a man/woman" for two years,

I agree that means very little, but it just underlines the fact the GRA doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t mean you can change sex.

Treatment for gender dysphoria is transition, gatekeeping that by forcing trans people to meet a cis psychologists idea of what a man or woman should look like or act isn't treatment. The GRA says they need to "live as a man/woman" for two years, cis gatekeepers decide what that means. They decide it based on sexist, outdated, stereotypes.

Nobody is forced to conform to any sort of stereotypes in order to either get treatment for gender dysphoria or to get a GRC.

In order to be seen to be 'living as a woman/man' for a GRC all someone has to do is change their name and show their utility bills in the new name.

There appears to be no gatekeeping at all to have hormone treatment and surgery as an adult. There are waiting lists if you don't have money for private treatment. That's all.

@PheasantPlucker1

BigotryisBad it has been proven to you that in both the law and the recommended guidance you have linked too, there are exemptions made for single sex spaces.

Its also quite insulting to transpeople for you to suggest that 80 years ago, in 1940, transpeople were living in peace in England, and given the legal right to live as the opposite sex.
1n 1940 a transwoman would have been seen as legally male, conscripted and shot if they refused to fight as was expected of a man.
A transwoman wishing to marry a man could have been imprisoned.

BigotryisBad it has been proven to you that in both the law and the recommended guidance you have linked too, there are exemptions made for single sex spaces.

I quoted the exemption. In full. Then explained why it wasn't relevant. Then pointed out that the case that had been posted was:

1. Effectively not binding on any other court.
2. Not addressing the relevant question.
3. Not actually relevant to what I'd said at all.

I did this politely, so I understand how you didn't notice.

Its also quite insulting to transpeople for you to suggest that 80 years ago, in 1940, transpeople were living in peace in England, and given the legal right to live as the opposite sex.

Trans people were living as themselves before World War 2. Claiming otherwise, without evidence, is the insulting thing here.

1n 1940 a transwoman would have been seen as legally male, conscripted and shot if they refused to fight as was expected of a man.

There were several trans people who fought with honour and bravery during the Second World War and were decorated for their service. They then came home, changed their sex on their birth certificates as they were legally entitled to do at the time and lived their lives as themselves.

A transwoman wishing to marry a man could have been imprisoned.

No. April Ashley, for example, was a trans woman who married a man as late as 1963. Not only was she not imprisoned, it was her husband's divorce case, known as Corbett v Corbett which changed the law for trans people and led to the restrictions which only changed with the Gender Reception Act in 2004.

Who/what are ‘cis gatekeepers’. Are they people who identify as gates?

No, if you're producing sperm, you're not born female any which way how. That is the opposite of the definition.