When did the dialogue change?

[Whatonearth07957]

Feel I have to pre-empt this by saying absolutely everyone should not be discriminated against for sex and gender. But when did it get accepted that women's sex based rights should be eroded. I watched Sky news need this morning and zero challenge to the assertion trans were the most marginalised group. Surely there can be a 3rd way approach that protects women only spaces that are based on safety? I just don't get why this is controversial and you are somehow an evil zealot to be concerned about this. It seems as though all dialogue is completely polarised. I'm second guessing myself but with consent and safety measures adaption is possible but not if concerns can't be reasonably addressed?

[stumbledin]

Just a couple of quick points.

I think queer theory has been around for decades but really only got a foot hold through becoming more overt in universities.

And in a sense it was queer theory claiming the right over lesbians and gay men that has been (as much of) a problem as queer gender theory has been for women.

So just as some now to trans the past, they also try to queer the history of lesbian and gay movement.

But overall I think what I was trying to say is that it is only because there has been as slow seep into day to day life of queer theory that we now have an extreme arm of it, trans politics.

Just as for instance those of us who grew up pre new technology are able to use it as a tool. But for those who have grown up with it dominating every part of their life accept it as "natural". But between those of us who were early adopters, there was a period when new technology became more common and useful but didn't dominate or dictate our lives.

So it is possible for those who grew up at a time when we all knew about biological sex, it was easier to see gender as a social contruct imposed on us. Those who have grown up and been taught that sex and gender are the same thing, and kind even be a choice, are obviously more suspectible to the arguements of trans activists.

[merrymouse]

Going back to the OP, the dialogue changed in 2015 when Stonewall started to campaign to remove sex based exceptions from the EA and started campaigning for self ID. It then intensified in 2017 around the time Maria Miller released her report.

However I think this all just reveals an old problem - discussion of women’s rights isn’t tolerated if it makes people feel bad.

[merrymouse]

It doesn't. As that protection is for anyone who is pregnant.

This really underlines how little some people think about the rights that women need, and hence why it’s so important to talk about sex based rights.

A sex based right is a right that impacts differently on men and women. An obvious example is the ability to control fertility. A man can literally walk away from an unwanted pregnancy.

Before women in the U.K. had easy access to birth control in the 1970’s their ability to gain financial independence was impacted not just by the fact that they might become pregnant, but by employer’s perception that they would become pregnant and were therefore unreliable. Of course this perception still exists, but we do at least have employment legislation to protect women.

The protected characteristic of pregnancy only covers a limited period. The consequences of being somebody who might become pregnant or who has been pregnant last a life time.

If you want to know more read ‘invisible women’ or watch an episode of ‘call the midwife’.

[Waitwhat23]

@lionheart that's really interesting, thank you.

One thing that struck me (in terms of dialogue changing) is the use of the term queer - when I was growing up, it was considered a slur and I know its still viewed that way by many LGB people but it seems to be used more and more by people and organisations. Is this an example of 'reclaiming' the word or is it related to queer theory? Clearly I need to read up more on it!

[Waitwhat23]

@stumbledin thank you, I will have a look at the Selina Todd talk to get some context as clearly all this started much earlier than I had realised! I had thought it was a relatively new thing but it sounds like it went from women's lib in the 70's straight into gender theory in the 80's. In terms of generations, you're probably right - my mum would have been Uni age in the late 70's/early 80's, I was at Uni in the early 00's and another new generation will currently be at Uni now in the 20's so every 20 years or so?

In terms of informal groups, I suspect that it all stems from the period where women were entering the public sphere and the historical context. It's like this website - people seem surprised when they realise we don't solely focus on prams and weaning and seem almost outraged that there might be wider conversations going on - that women might find power through connecting with other women.

You've got a point about women not having time as they've got the double shift of work and unpaid work. You see it often on this website - men who have hobbies which take up huge amounts of time at the weekends and evenings where their partner has to do all the childcare etc to support that. It's rarely the other way around it seems.

[lionheart]

This is really illuminating:

sheridansinclair.substack.com/p/what-happened-to-stonewall-uk

[stumbledin]

Waitwhat23 - I am never quite sure what a generation is so may have misused the word.

I became aware of the change in the 80s, not because I was anything to do with universities but women involved in women's studies would bring this ups in the 80s equivilent to sm - newsletters!

I think for accurate dates its best to listen or read Selina Todd's speech. I think she suggest the concepts at the core of queer theory started early. But had got more than a foot hold among university staff by 80s, and feminism, particularly women's liberation became one of the casualties.

I always wonder why women, even allowing for less status in workplaces colleges dont seem to create these informal networks that men have that are the means by which they gain influence at political level. Is it dinner parties, gay clubs, sports, men's clubs, ... ? Whilst basically women, nearly all of whom are doing the double shift of paid work and then unpaid work at home dont have time?

[TomatoesAreFruit]

In 2010 both age and gender reassignment were added to the Equality Act as protected characteristics at the same time.

At the time, it felt that adding age to the equality act was a big deal, with, for example DOBs being removed from Application Forms and job specs being changed in relation to x years experience being required.

Job adverts were checked and words such as "mature" were removed.

However, no changes in my organisation were made after gender reassignment was added, it was a much more low key change.

BTW I am not saying that Gender Reassignment shouldn't have been added - just that it didn't prompt any organisational response at the time.

[Waitwhat23]

It seems to have all started a lot earlier than I realised.

[Waitwhat23]

anyway. I found your history overview earlier in this thread interesting @stumbledin, in particular the beginning of teaching of queer theory. You mention 2 or 3 generations having been taught it in universities - what decade did that teaching start?

[stumbledin]

Please can we go back to the original topic. this is just a derail.

[Leafstamp]

yeahbutnaw

As a pp said, sex-based rights, is short hand for rights that people have based on their sex. In most cases men and women have exactly the same rights, included the right to not be discriminated based on their sex. Obviously, there are other protected characteristics. I'm sure you're aware of these.

There are several situations in which an organisation can lawfully provide single sex services, where they can justify it. For example offering a women-only support service to victims of domestic violence who are women is likely to be justifiable even if there is no parallel service for men due to insufficient demand.

[stumbledin]

So you agree that "sex-based rights" don't actually exist.

For heavens sake as in the quote given it says someone shouldn't be discriminated against of the basis of their sex. Therefore the opposite of that is to protect sex based rights of which ever sex.

That's why we have a sex discrimination act.

This was a really interesting thread about something else which has been derailed. If you want a thread about whether or not sex based rights exist, please start your own thread.

Or is this another example of whataboutery to stop the original discussion.

This is a real red herring.

[MorgaineLeFay]

Exactly. And the sex of trans men is female.

[Waitwhat23]

Pregnancy is only experienced by one sex. Hence sex based right. Relating specifically to that particular sex.

That is a fact. A biological sex based fact. It is how the human race reproduces. However someone identifies, the fact that biological women are the only people who can get pregnant is a fact.

[yeahbutnaw]

@sanluca

The existence of transmen, who are adult human females, and non binary women, does not negate the fact all people who can get pregnant are women, aka adult human females.

I was replying to @Waitwhat23 who suggested that since pregnancy is a protected characteristic it means sex-based rights exist.

It doesn't. As that protection is for anyone who is pregnant.

[sanluca]

The existence of transmen, who are adult human females, and non binary women, does not negate the fact all people who can get pregnant are women, aka adult human females.

[yeahbutnaw]

@Waitwhat23

Additionally, pregnancy is covered as a protected characteristic in the Equality Act and will by its very nature only be relevant to biological women. That doesn't cover people, that covers specially women.

It covers trans men and non-binary people too.

[Waitwhat23]

Additionally, pregnancy is covered as a protected characteristic in the Equality Act and will by its very nature only be relevant to biological women. That doesn't cover people, that covers specially women.

[Waitwhat23]

Again, from my previous post '
The Equality Act has some exceptions that allow employers or organisations to discriminate because of your sex' and one of the examples of exceptions clearly relates to women's specific biology/bodies/genitalia or however you wish to put it - 'In competitive sports the organisers can hold separate events for men and women because the differences in stamina, strength and physique would otherwise make the competition unfair'.

So yes, you're splitting hairs or being deliberately obtuse.

[sanluca]

""Sex-based rights"" don't exist in any legal or policy framework that I've seen.

Maybe actually read the EA, specifically for the excemptions.

A handy summary: fairplayforwomen.com/equality-act-2010_womens-rights/

[yeahbutnaw]

@Waitwhat23

well yes, as bolded in my post,
'In the Equality Act, sex can mean either male or female, or a group of people like men or boys, or women or girls' so yes, men and women can be discriminated against on the basis of their sex.

Women obviously also need additional protection on the basis of things which only relate to female biology - breastfeeding, pregnancy etc. The Equality Act also states that there are 'several situations in which an organisation can lawfully provide single sex services' which in practice often relates to things like rape crisis services (and is used as a specific example as seen above).

You're really splitting hairs if you want to insist that 'the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of sex' is different to 'sex based rights'. What is the point you are trying to make?

I don't think it's splitting hairs at all.

This conversation refers to "women's sex-based rights", which suggests that women have specific rights on the basis of their genitalia (or chromosomes or gametes - however you choose to define sex).

Yet you cite a law that people should not be treated differently based on their sex. That's very different.

""Sex-based rights"" don't exist in any legal or policy framework that I've seen.

[sanluca]

Yeahbutnaw, "sex based rights" is shorthand for the excemptions and positive discrimination allowed for those of the female sex. And yes, also those of the male sex, like inheritance of titles or membership of the Freemasons.

[Waitwhat23]

Sorry, the example given above is domestic violence support services, not rape crisis services.

[Waitwhat23]

well yes, as bolded in my post,
'In the Equality Act, sex can mean either male or female, or a group of people like men or boys, or women or girls' so yes, men and women can be discriminated against on the basis of their sex.

Women obviously also need additional protection on the basis of things which only relate to female biology - breastfeeding, pregnancy etc. The Equality Act also states that there are 'several situations in which an organisation can lawfully provide single sex services' which in practice often relates to things like rape crisis services (and is used as a specific example as seen above).

You're really splitting hairs if you want to insist that 'the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of sex' is different to 'sex based rights'. What is the point you are trying to make?