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?

I randomly found this article and was surprised at the date and also how openly the author described an issue we are now seeing. 2007

www.salon.com/2007/10/08/lgbt/

@safeornotsafe

I would've said the most marginalised group are the disabled but they're so marginalised they're basically invisible.

I'd agree with this hugely. And a lot of the trans twisting of words is ableist.

Excellent potted history, thanks Stumbledin. As a feminist I’ve always seen us as allies to the LGB movement, though I did notice over the decades we seemed to put in more effort than gay men did.

I was totally blindsided by the trans takeover, though. Glad the LGB Alliance has re-established the original purpose, of supporting same-sex attraction. And I now get my feminist news on Mumsnet, which has been another surprise! But a welcome one.

Fascinating link, WarriorN, thanks. I was going to say John Aravosis had amazing foresight, but of course as a gay man he saw it all happening around him.

At the time he was writing, the USA was debating a long-awaited law to stop employers discriminating on the grounds of homosexuality. But this was being derailed by demands to include transsexuals. A lot of people, gay and straight, didn’t see how transsexualism fitted in with simple same-sex attraction. And many felt uneasy about the Queer Theory agenda.

What he didn’t foresee was that within a decade the trans lobby would be triumphant, laws would enshrine their rights to the detriment of women, and gays would be setting up their own movement again. But who would foresee that?

A good essay, still worth reading now.

@Lemmen

It changed after Stonewall did I think.

Well it looks like the tide is turning on that one. Stonewall Law is a euphemism for ‘honking great big old fibs with bells on’ these days.

I think a lot of people (mostly men but not only) really do not like women and really, really do not like feminists. When the chance arose to blame feminism and women in general they grabbed it with both hands.

WarriorN

Women's Studies I think started coming under attack in the 80s. It was very much part of the male back lash at that time in wider society. So again maybe we weren't all as aware as we now are that this was different because of queer politics, rather than plain old fashioned misyogyny. (in my mind girl power and young women claiming they had the right to get pissed like boys were all part of that - equating equality as being able to be as crap as men - rather than women's liberation that challenges not just men as individuals but male power and culture - ie patriarchy)

Thecatonthemat - the bit I left out was the impact of funding on women's groups. Which should have been positive, ie taking women's refuges out of squats etc., but of course came with strings attached. And later those strings would be the TWAW arguement.

Ken Livingstone, who was the first to use council money to fund women's groups is alleged to have said it was intended as a means of control, to create loyalty and because (I think) they thought women would need to be overseen by professionals like council officers!

This also lead to a lot of groups being created in the image that councils want. For instance the WRC is an artificial creation of the then London Councils and was specifically set up to act as an arm of the funders (rather than purportedly being a voice for women's groups). Women's groups were told their funding depended on becoming members of the WRC. And of course it meant council officers didn't have to do the job of genuine consultations, they just got their arm of government to do it for them. And of course they have never made a statement on single sex provision. What a surprise.

There was a big meeting in London at A Woman's Place (not the latter day group but a women's centre in the middle of london with meeting rooms and books etc.) about whether women's groups should take funding. The majority said less, partly because of the stress of unfunded work, but also socialist feminists were very vocal in those days and they did see that their feminism was about bringing women into the remit of the Labour Party. Long before the current generation of feminists who have succumbed to gender politics, socialist feminists were selling out autonomous women's groups to the Labour Party structure. How times change - not!

Needless to say the only ones opposing taking funding were the Anarchist Feminists who said it will end badly. And they were right.

What is a sex-based right?

And if they're sex-based, then why don't men have them?

Are there any references to "sex-based rights" in any legal or policy documentation?

fairplayforwomen.com/equality-act-2010_womens-rights/

Also, www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/sex-discrimination which states -
'TheEquality Act 2010says you must not be discriminated against because:
• you are (or are not) a particular sex
• someone thinks you are the opposite sex (this is known as discrimination by perception)
• you are connected to someone of a particular sex(this is known as discrimination by association)

In the Equality Act, sex can mean either male or female, or a group of people like men or boys, or women or girls.

There are also exemptions which address issues faced by a specific sex -

Circumstances when being treated differently due to sex is lawful

The Equality Act has some exceptions that allow employers or organisations to discriminate because of your sex.

A difference in treatment may be lawful if:

• Being a particular sex is essential for a job.
This is called anoccupational requirement. This includes some jobs which require someone of a particular sex for reasons of privacy and decency or where personal services are provided. For example,a gym could employ a changing room attendant that is the same sex as the users of that room.
• An organisation is takingpositive action.
Positive action might be used to encourage or develop people of a sex that is under-represented or disadvantaged in a role or activity. For example,an engineering firm places a job advert for a trainee engineer stating that applications from women are welcome.

Other exceptions

The armed forces can refuse to employ a woman, or limit her access to training or promotion if it means they can ensure the combat effectiveness of the armed forces.

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.

There are several situations in which an organisation can lawfully provide single sex services. In all circumstances they must be able to 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

A religious organisation can sometimes restrict employment to one sex if the role is for religious purposes. For example:

• an orthodox synagogue can require its rabbi to be a man

@Waitwhat23

fairplayforwomen.com/equality-act-2010_womens-rights/

Also, www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/sex-discrimination which states -
'TheEquality Act 2010says you must not be discriminated against because:
• you are (or are not) a particular sex
• someone thinks you are the opposite sex (this is known as discrimination by perception)
• you are connected to someone of a particular sex(this is known as discrimination by association)

In the Equality Act, sex can mean either male or female, or a group of people like men or boys, or women or girls.

There are also exemptions which address issues faced by a specific sex -

Circumstances when being treated differently due to sex is lawful

The Equality Act has some exceptions that allow employers or organisations to discriminate because of your sex.

A difference in treatment may be lawful if:

• Being a particular sex is essential for a job.
This is called anoccupational requirement. This includes some jobs which require someone of a particular sex for reasons of privacy and decency or where personal services are provided. For example,a gym could employ a changing room attendant that is the same sex as the users of that room.
• An organisation is takingpositive action.
Positive action might be used to encourage or develop people of a sex that is under-represented or disadvantaged in a role or activity. For example,an engineering firm places a job advert for a trainee engineer stating that applications from women are welcome.

Other exceptions

The armed forces can refuse to employ a woman, or limit her access to training or promotion if it means they can ensure the combat effectiveness of the armed forces.

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.

There are several situations in which an organisation can lawfully provide single sex services. In all circumstances they must be able to 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

A religious organisation can sometimes restrict employment to one sex if the role is for religious purposes. For example:

• an orthodox synagogue can require its rabbi to be a man

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

Since what you refer to is the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of sex. Which applies to people born with male genitalia as well as female.

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?

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

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

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.

""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/

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.

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

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.

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.

@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.

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.

Exactly. And the sex of trans men is female.

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.

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.