Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Dr Debbie Hayton interview

528 replies

ChristinaXYZ · 05/04/2021 13:20

In case you haven't seen it.

“I worry that trans people are being used in a political campaign to compromise women’s spaces”

OP posts:
OldCrone · 11/04/2021 12:17

Supposed how? In your view? By some specification somewhere? Intrigued to know what you mean.

R0wantrees has provided a link to the relevant part of the EA2010.

Either te appointment panel knew of Mahiri's personal background and appointed her nevertheless, or did not know, in which case we are into 'so what' territory,

Women's right to single sex spaces is 'so what' territory. Once again showing us who you are.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 11/04/2021 12:29

This means that the single sex exemptions regarding employment are impossible to enforce. You cannot ask to see a GRC or reveal the existence of a GRC in an official capacity. The DBS returns a misrepresentation of sex.

Exactly.

OldCrone · 11/04/2021 12:33

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

R0wantrees · 11/04/2021 12:35

Women's right to single sex spaces is 'so what' territory.

Specifically the rights of women and girls who have been raped by men to be counselled in a female-only space by female staff.

The impact on many women subjected to and traumatised by male sexual abuse when male professionals become involved in their care was demonstrated last year in the testimonies supporting MSP Johann Lamont's amendment to The Forensic Medical Services (Victims of Sexual Offences) (Scotland) Bill.

Holyrood
by Mandy Rhodes
13 December 2020
'Six little words: for the word ‘gender’ substitute ‘sex’
(extract)
"How have we got to a place where female victims of sexual violence have to go public on their suffering and plead with MSPs to pass a legislative amendment that would mean they get to choose the sex of the person that examines them following rape?

How have we got to a place where women who have been sexually brutalised have to run the gauntlet of gender ideology just so they can specify they want a biological woman to examine them rather than a man?

How have we got to a place where women who have been raped get called transphobes, bigots and TERFs for insisting a woman carries out what must be the most hellish of procedures after their body has been so violated by a man?

And how have we got to a place where the national support service, set up by women for women to support women through the trauma of rape, tells victims that they have got it wrong?

Last week an important piece of policy reached its final stages in the Scottish Parliament: The Forensic Medical Services (Victims of Sexual Offences) (Scotland) Bill. It is a well overdue piece of legislation designed to improve access to healthcare services for victims of rape and sexual assault.

It follows on from the haunting revelations, back in 2017, of rape victims having to wait for up to three days without washing while a female forensic examiner could be sourced. (continues)

The Forensic Services Bill secured early cross-party support and at committee stage, and having heard from survivors, there was a recommendation that the use of the word ‘gender’ in relation to the criteria victims could apply pertaining to a request for who examines them was too ambiguous and that this should be changed to ‘sex’.

The Scottish Government rejected the argument for reasons that still make no sense. And, inexplicably, Rape Crisis Scotland agreed.

Meanwhile, the Scottish Labour MSP Johann Lamont, who carries with her gilt-edged credentials in feminism rooted in real women’s experiences of oppression, heroically tabled an amendment.

It was just six little words – “for the word ‘gender’ substitute ‘sex’”.

And for that, Lamont was vilified.

For those trying to keep up with why something so fundamental as a victim’s right to choose the sex of who examines them after a rape is in any way contentious, you need only refer back to the debate surrounding proposed reform of the Gender Recognition Act to understand why everything is now seen through that lens." (continues)
www.holyrood.com/editors-column/view,six-little-words-for-the-word-gender-substitute-sex

ErrolTheDragon · 11/04/2021 13:16

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Quotes deleted post

IDontOnlyLikeJazzFunk · 11/04/2021 13:48

Either te appointment panel knew of Mahiri's personal background and appointed her nevertheless, or did not know, in which case we are into 'so what' territory,

Ignoring your rather disturbing disregard for the law or women's needs, I think you will find that Mridul Wadhwa applied and was given the position to which they were specifically not qualified by deliberately concealing their birth sex.

As I understand, when this was discovered, Mridul was not sacked immediately for unknown reasons. One of those reasons IS NOT that Mridul was amazing at their job and continuing in their job would have benefited the women at the rape shelter.

By evidence on here from a woman who sadly had to avail herself of the counselling services of the rape shelter, found Mridul a wholly inadequate counsellor, with Mridul apparently yawning and checking Mridul's phone during a counselling session (with a rape victim).

Subsequently we have seen various communications on social media from Mridul (who is also trying to get elected in some capacity in a restricted women's role, despite not even having a GRC) that are violent in nature and extremely anti-women. One tweet from Mridul depicted an Indian god of war holding a bloodied, decapitated head and was in response to women advocating for their legal rights.

This person is a rape counsellor.

In my world, that is not ok. It is disturbing that some people seem to think it is.

vivariumvivariumsvivaria · 11/04/2021 14:03

I remember that woman's account of being "counselled" by MW, it was awful. There was also some question of MW's qualifications.

EmpressWitchDoesntBurn · 11/04/2021 14:04

In which case it seems astonishing that MW is still in the job.

vivariumvivariumsvivaria · 11/04/2021 14:13

Well, not really, Empress. It appears that having a gender difference means that you don't actually need qualifications to excel in a field.

For instance, James Morton advised the Scottish government on housing of criminals who happen to be trans. James Morton had no expertise or training in the justice system whatsoever, but, is a transgender person.

R0wantrees · 11/04/2021 14:23

For instance, James Morton advised the Scottish government on housing of criminals who happen to be trans. James Morton had no expertise or training in the justice system whatsoever, but, is a transgender person.

STILLTish article, September 2019:

'Ministry of Justice: Updated Policy on caring for Transgender Prisoners.'

(extract)
"The policy exposes how far the, legally protected, characteristic of sex has been eroded, by allowing anyone, regardless of biology, to declare they are a woman. The prison system is illustrative of just how far Gender Identity ideology is embedded within our legislature and enshrined in public policy.

Below is a quote 👇 from James Morton, of the Scottish Trans Alliance, which shows that Female prisoners are the subjects of a dangerous laboratory experiment. James is listed as an author of the Scottish Prisons Policy which deals with Transgender Prisoners. As James is a lobbyist for Trans Rights there is only one group at the forefront of the policy. Spoiler. Its not Women.

‘We strategized – we strategized – that by working intensively with the Scottish Prison Service to support them to include trans women as women on a self-declaration basis within very challenging circumstances, we would be able to ensure that all other public services should be able to do likewise’.

The above quote is illustrative of a complete disregard for the female prison population; one of the most vulnerable groups in our society. Domestic violence refuges, rape crisis centres and female prisons do seem to figure prominently in the targeted locations. Captive females are being targeted for this new branch of Men’s rights activism." (continues)
gendercriticalwoman.wordpress.com/2019/09/19/ministry-of-justice-new-policy-on-caring-for-transgender-prisoners/

relevant thread www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3829786-James-Morton-scottish-trans-alliance-quote

EmbarrassingAdmissions · 11/04/2021 14:33

James Morton had no expertise or training in the justice system whatsoever, but, is a transgender person.

As a general example, for me, this falls across the valorisation of 'lived experience' to the detriment of all other considerations. It's important but for it to trump evidence and other competing considerations is an increasingly common phenomenon in various areas such as healthcare and it's perturbing.

TalkingtoLangClegintheDark · 11/04/2021 16:10

Either te appointment panel knew of Mahiri's personal background and appointed her nevertheless, or did not know, in which case we are into 'so what' territory

I don’t think there could be a more callous statement of utter disregard for the rights, needs, safety and feelings of women who have been raped.

I had always had the sense that this is RobinMoiraWhite’s underlying attitude to women’s needs in general, but to see it stated as clearly as this, particularly in the context of women at their most extremely vulnerable, is nonetheless stark. I actually find it truly distressing.

EmpressWitchDoesntBurn · 11/04/2021 16:21

I had always had the sense that this is RobinMoiraWhite’s underlying attitude to women’s needs in general, but to see it stated as clearly as this, particularly in the context of women at their most extremely vulnerable, is nonetheless stark. I actually find it truly distressing.

I know. But at least now it’s very clear.

TalkingtoLangClegintheDark · 11/04/2021 16:23

There is so much that is distressing on this thread. The continued existence of NAMBLA has horrified me; I didn’t realise it was legal for an organisation that specifically promotes illegal activity, that illegal activity being the sexual abuse of children, to be allowed to function and have a website that is quite open about its aims.

Is this because of the difference in the free speech laws between the USA and UK, does anyone know?

At any rate, reading the history of NAMBLA, and of ILGA’s involvement with them, as well as all the other continually emerging stories of child sexual abuse both historical and current, it really is like whack a mole, as you say, Datun. That’s exactly what it’s like.

We live in a world of such cognitive dissonance, don’t we? We know that male violence/male sexual violence against women and children is absolutely endemic. We know that here in the UK there are so many men downloading images of child abuse that there is literally no hope of prosecuting them all, even when they can be easily identified: there just aren’t the resources available in terms of police hours or CJS capacity to follow them all up.

And yet people still want to believe it’s a “tiny minority” of male people who are a threat; women who want to make safeguarding as watertight as possible are just “hysterical” and “hate filled”, making a mountain out of a molehill.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

TalkingtoLangClegintheDark · 11/04/2021 16:23

I know. But at least now it’s very clear.

Yes.

StellaAndCrow · 11/04/2021 17:30

@R0wantrees

Most people, most male people will not be predators but allowing any group of people to disregard rules such as respecting single sex spaces or proper DBS checks increases the risk of a problem. Allowing a group of people exemptions based on self declaration is a reckless approach.

The DBS 'sensitive' process is for those adults who 'self identify' as transgender:
www.gov.uk/guidance/transgender-applications

Any DBS certificate issued where an applicant has availed themselves of this option would show female or male as per self-identified gender identity as opposed to sex (legal or biological).
The employer/ potential employer is not advised that the applicant has used this process or of those previous names which indicate sex.

I don't understand why a change of gender, or of legal sex status, should be treated as so sensitive, so much more so than any other type of information. Why and how has it been accepted by society that referring to someone's previous name is "dead naming" and such an awful thing to do? Why is it any worse than referring to someone's maiden name, or any other previous details?
StellaAndCrow · 11/04/2021 17:31

Wouldn't it be so much better to be open about it?

To me the secrecy surrounding it seems out of proportion, given the risks inherent in being able to conceal a previous identity.

TalkingtoLangClegintheDark · 11/04/2021 17:43

Why and how has it been accepted by society that referring to someone's previous name is "dead naming" and such an awful thing to do?

Very good question.

RobinMoiraWhite · 11/04/2021 18:26

Why and how has it been accepted by society that referring to someone's previous name is "dead naming" and such an awful thing to do?
Why is it any worse than referring to someone's maiden name, or any other previous details?

Astonishing. You will never understand trans people.

ErrolTheDragon · 11/04/2021 18:37

Perhaps it's somewhat akin (if not a precise analogy) to a woman wanting to shed the name of an abusive ex spouse? It would certainly be cruel to deliberately call her 'Mrs xxx'. Or someone wanting to expunge connection with an abusive family?

But afaik no special consideration is given to her feelings, her rejection of an identity associated with an abuser, with regard to DBS and public records.

TalkingtoLangClegintheDark · 11/04/2021 18:42

Ah women, know your place. You are not here to be autonomous human beings! You are here to understand biologically male people, to offer them support and comfort, to be their helpmeet in whatever capacity they desire!

You thought perhaps you had rights too? That your feelings, wishes and needs could matter too?

Well, “so what”? So what, women. The world is stacked in favour of biologically male people, as it always has been, and they're very happy with that status quo and have no intention of conceding all that lovely male power and privilege, thank you very much.

They will continue having their wishes centred and your needs sidelined.

And they will continue to scold and chastise you for betraying even the slightest hint that you want to be valued as an equal human being, for advocating for yourselves at all, and portray you as the big bad bullies for doing this, and themselves as the helpless, hapless victims.

Because they can.

So what?

EmpressWitchDoesntBurn · 11/04/2021 18:45

@RobinMoiraWhite

*Why and how has it been accepted by society that referring to someone's previous name is "dead naming" and such an awful thing to do? Why is it any worse than referring to someone's maiden name, or any other previous details?*

Astonishing. You will never understand trans people.

That doesn’t answer my question as to what measures are in place to flag when trans people choose not to use the ‘sensitive’ option to disclose their previous names though.

Or does that come under the context of ‘so what’?

Floisme · 11/04/2021 18:53

Well I do think Robin might have a point there. Maybe trans people and women simply do not and never will understand each other? The thing is though, why might that be?

TalkingtoLangClegintheDark · 11/04/2021 18:56

I am tired beyond belief of the nasty, nasty suggestions that trans people as a class are a threat to others. We arent. I am old enough to remember exactly that being said about gay people 25 years ago.

You cannot possibly be as tired as I am, Robin, of the disingenuous trope that it is the “trans” aspect of biologically male people that women perceive as a threat when you know, we all know, it has been stated and explained many, many times that it is the fact of being biologically male that is the issue.

The fact of you or any other biologically male person being “trans” (or not) is of absolutely no interest to me. It is not something around which my world revolves. The rights and safety of women and girls, and the safeguarding of children and vulnerable adults, are absolutely central issues to me, however, and whatever notice I take of anything “trans” related is taken from that perspective. **

The reality is that statistically, biologically male people represent a greater threat to biologically female people and children of both sexes than biologically female people do. My position and that of many other women on this board is that all biologically male people should be treated the same way when it comes to grouping people into the categories of male and female.

In this respect the women of this board are much closer to the agenda of the original gay rights activists than you are. Gay men wanted to have the same rights as other men: the right to consensual sex with partners at the same age, the same employment rights etc, the right not to be discriminated against by/in relation to other men. (Not ignoring the vital role of lesbians in historical gay rights activism of course, just focusing here specifically on male people.)

I support that approach entirely. Biologically male trans people should have all the same rights as all other biologically male people, and should be subject to all the same restrictions as all other biologically male people. It’s very simple. This is not about singling people out for being trans; it its not about “tarring all members of a group with the same brush”, and it’s certainly not “nasty”. (Unless you think caring about safeguarding is “nasty”, which would be really worrying so I’m sure that’s not what you meant.)

There are lot of perfectly nice, non-predatory men, and all of them should be subject to the same safeguarding protocols as all other men. The same goes for biologically male people who are trans. How is that hatred? How is that “nasty”? Equal treatment for all biologically male people across the board. When it comes to matters where someone’s sex is or could conceivably be a matter of import.

I think it was a catastrophic failure of government to enable people to misrepresent the physical truth about an aspect of themselves as crucial and fundamental as biological sex on official identity documents. It should never have been countenanced in the first place and it should be urgently reviewed.

The fact it is mostly biologically female people who are of this opinion, at the moment, and the fact that as such our voices are still genuinely marginalised, means that I dont see such a review coming about any time soon. Absent the male privilege/power that was/is behind the extraordinary success of the trans rights movement, when women (biologically female people, that is) want to see changes in the law, we generally have to wait a very long time to be heard.

** actually also, increasingly, from the perspective of being horrified by the phenomenon of regulatory capture, and by the growing authoritarianism of “liberal” western democracies.

TalkingtoLangClegintheDark · 11/04/2021 19:24

Once again I find myself musing on the eternal question: what is it, Robin, that you think you and I have in common, beyond that which we have in common with any other human being? What commonality do we share, that puts us in a group and joins us together with most biologically female people while excluding most biologically male people?

Because I just don’t see anything. Nothing at all. I am a woman because I am biologically female and I reached adulthood. That’s it. The only commonality I share with all other women is our female biology (however functional or not that biology is). The word woman says nothing more about me at all. I get that you didn't feel comfortable presenting to the world as a man, or as how men are generally expected to present.

But I have no idea why the concept of being a male person who isn’t comfortable presenting as a man should therefore equate to you being a “woman”, as if the meaning of “woman” were simply “person not comfortable being seen as a man”.

That would presuppose that there were no meaning already attached to the word “woman”; that it were an empty space waiting to be filled. But it wasn’t. It isn’t. Being a biologically female human being is a question of material reality, one which you don't share and will never share.

It is also, in the patriarchal world we live in, an experience of being socialised as a female, ie the “second sex”: again, as someone who was brought up and socialised male, as a member of the “first sex”, this is something you have no experience of.

Where is the overlap? What is our common ground, beyond our common humanity? Calling yourself a woman is an act of forced teaming, but in what way are we a team? How are we on the same side? How are you, particularly, as a member of the oppressor sex class, on my side, as a member of the oppressed sex class, when you appropriate my name for myself, my spaces and services, my rights?

It doesn’t feel like you're on my side at all. It feels like you expect me and other women to support and include you without any thought of how that impacts us. It feels entirely one way, as has so often been the case in the dynamics between male and female people in the long and unillustrious history of patriarchy.

You are astonished at our lack of “understanding” for you.

I have never once seen you demonstrate even one single tiny iota of understanding for the women you presume to lecture here. Not one.

I have never seen you acknowledge a single one of our concerns, never seen you engage with our actual arguments, no matter how well articulated, never seen you express any compassion, respect or understanding for the life experiences that are exclusive to those of us born female in a society that habitually devalues the female and over-values the male.

I have never seen any wish to learn from us. Any hint that you think there could be something you don’t already know. Any wish to amplify our voices.

All I see is a biologically male person who presumes to know better than the biologically female people whom that biologically male person is addressing.

Which is something I, along with most (all?) other biologically female people, am already very over familiar with. This is our everyday, as it has been for women since forever.

I have never yet seen a post from you Robin which indicates that you recognise that we are human beings of equal worth to you. Tell me again where our common ground is?