Why aren't transactivists gender-critical?

[oxcat1]

Please go easy on me if this is a stupid question.

If gender is simply the socially constructed expectations of how people should behave and dress, why isn't the trans movement gender critical? Surely to break down these societal expectations is in their interests (just as it is in the interest of women, feminists argue)?

Instead, the trans movement seeks to enshrine in law the very structure that makes living their own lives as they wish, free from constraints of societal expectations, so very difficult.

Why is that? Or have I totally misunderstood?

@Helen8220

‘Cis’ just means ‘not trans’, as far as I’m concerned.

And what is ‘trans’, so I know I’m not it?

Given it's the law, and given you're a lawyer, that's a very odd stance to take. I wouldn't have thought that disagreement with the law is generally thought of as a good opening gambit in court.

I’m not aware of any case law on the precise meaning of ‘sex’ in the definition of sexual orientation in the Equality Act, and how the sexual orientation of a person who is attracted to both trans and non-trans women would be regarded - and that’s probably because it doesn’t actually matter, as a person will be protected from discrimination regardless of whether it’s your definition or mine.

Anyway, given that a trans woman who has a gender recognition certificate is regarded as being of the female sex for all legal purposes, presumably a non-trans woman who is attracted to non-trans women plus trans women who have a GRC, would be considered a person who is only attracted to people of the same sex, for the purposes of the Equality Act?

Well that's a pointless exercise, given they could all be males. See how this works?

I should clarify - as far as I’m aware, none of the lesbians I know is trans.

@Cwenthryth

And what is ‘trans’, so I know I’m not it?

I’m not sure if this covers every single possible case, but broadly, a person is trans if they were registered as male at birth but now identify as a woman or girl (or non-binary, depending on whether this is the broader or narrower meaning of trans) or if they were registered as female at birth but now identify as a man or boy (or non-binary)

@Helen8220

Helen, I think you know exactly what a support person means and I think you must have very little empathy for women, I really don’t see why women should compromise, men want to enter our same sex spaces and we say no, and we keep saying no.

They’re not just your spaces, they’re also the spaces of people like me who feel very differently to you.

Of course women who are happy to share our spaces exist. And that's partly the "problem" I suppose. Not all women agree. But morally the only acceptable solution is that we take the vulnerabilities into account.

I personally don't actually GAF who uses which toilets. As long as they don't piss on the floor/seat. But I have friends who cannot use mixed sex toilets for religious reasons. And one friend who was brutally raped and wouldn't want to use mixed sex facilities. So for those women I am against mixed sex toilets.

I don't play sports, and hopefully won't ever go to prison. But I am against transwomen being on women's teams/in women's prisons because... other women.

As a CSA survivor I am against mixed sex open changing rooms. I don't want to have penises in spaces where I'm not expecting them. I am horrified by the casual acceptance of boys into the guiding movement. Partly because my abuser would have self identified himself into guides/rangers just to prove he had more 'power' than me.

Anyway, given that a trans woman who has a gender recognition certificate is regarded as being of the female sex for all legal purposes, presumably a non-trans woman who is attracted to non-trans women plus trans women who have a GRC, would be considered a person who is only attracted to people of the same sex, for the purposes of the Equality Act?

There are around 3k biological male people with a GRC and I doubt this applies to all of them, as sexual orientation is a thing. So very few people indeed.

And while there are sex based exemptions possible in both the GRA and EA, it isn't all legal purposes, is it?

But morally the only acceptable solution is that we take the vulnerabilities into account.

It doesn't hurt women personally that they can't invite male people into female spaces, it's not their need. It does hurt women who can't share spaces with males. Consent can't be given by proxy for other women by the privileged among us, as Helen has herself acknowledged she is on other threads, and is aware that her comments are founded in this.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

But morally the only acceptable solution is that we take the vulnerabilities into account.

It doesn't hurt women personally that they can't invite male people into female spaces, it's not their need. It does hurt women who can't share spaces with males. Consent can't be given by proxy for other women by the privileged among us, as Helen has herself acknowledged she is on other threads, and is aware that her comments are founded in this.

Thank you. That's exactly what i was trying to say. You said it far more clearly than me!

@Helen8220

Given it's the law, and given you're a lawyer, that's a very odd stance to take. I wouldn't have thought that disagreement with the law is generally thought of as a good opening gambit in court.

I’m not aware of any case law on the precise meaning of ‘sex’ in the definition of sexual orientation in the Equality Act, and how the sexual orientation of a person who is attracted to both trans and non-trans women would be regarded - and that’s probably because it doesn’t actually matter, as a person will be protected from discrimination regardless of whether it’s your definition or mine.

Anyway, given that a trans woman who has a gender recognition certificate is regarded as being of the female sex for all legal purposes, presumably a non-trans woman who is attracted to non-trans women plus trans women who have a GRC, would be considered a person who is only attracted to people of the same sex, for the purposes of the Equality Act?

I shouldn't think so for a second!

Do you really not understand that sexual orientation is based on sex?

And how utterly offensive it is for lesbians and homosexual men to be told otherwise?

[quote Helen8220]@Cwenthryth

And what is ‘trans’, so I know I’m not it?

I’m not sure if this covers every single possible case, but broadly, a person is trans if they were registered as male at birth but now identify as a woman or girl (or non-binary, depending on whether this is the broader or narrower meaning of trans) or if they were registered as female at birth but now identify as a man or boy (or non-binary)[/quote]
What determines whether someone is registered as male or female at birth?

And how can I tell if I now identity as a woman or a man (or non-binary)?

Since you mentioned you believe that differences between men and women are mostly socially constructed, where does the knowledge that one is actually of the opposite gender come from?

I’m not aware of any case law on the precise meaning of ‘sex’ in the definition of sexual orientation in the Equality Act,

The definition of sex is clear. A male of any age. A female of any age. I posted the definition of sexual orientation in the explanatory notes below, and it rests on sex, not "gender". So yes, two biologically male people identifying as women in a relationship would be a same sex relationship, but gay rather than lesbians. A non GRC holding male person with a woman is either heterosexual or bisexual. And the GRC is a legal fiction, but I imagine like you that it would apply here.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

But morally the only acceptable solution is that we take the vulnerabilities into account.

It doesn't hurt women personally that they can't invite male people into female spaces, it's not their need. It does hurt women who can't share spaces with males. Consent can't be given by proxy for other women by the privileged among us, as Helen has herself acknowledged she is on other threads, and is aware that her comments are founded in this.

And not just waving away consent to spaces. But sexual orientation, dating pools, and protected characteristics under the equality act!

@Ereshkigalangcleg

There are around 3k biological male people with a GRC and I doubt this applies to all of them, as sexual orientation is a thing. So very few people indeed.

And while there are sex based exemptions possible in both the GRA and EA, it isn't all legal purposes, is it?

The point is that, for the reasons I gave, the definition of sexual orientation in the EA doesn’t prove that in legal terms ‘lesbian’ means a non-trans woman who is only attracted to non-trans women.

I haven't had time to read responses properly (baby!) But if no one else has raised it, I find Helen, your solution of butchering language using people who menstruate does not support the plain English guidelines.

My semi literate grandad I'm positive would understand 'man' and 'woman' more than any rubbish you come up with.

Why is it ok to discriminate against him?

I don’t think there’s much point in carrying on these lines of discussion, as it’s just rehashing arguments that have already been done to death here, and on which I’ve made my position clear. I responded to the OP to explain why I believe that gender is socially constructed and am also a TRA (in MN terms). I responded to a PP who asked how my views differ from those of GC people. Unless anyone has anything new or constructive to say I’ll leave it there.

[quote Helen8220]@Ereshkigalangcleg

There are around 3k biological male people with a GRC and I doubt this applies to all of them, as sexual orientation is a thing. So very few people indeed.

And while there are sex based exemptions possible in both the GRA and EA, it isn't all legal purposes, is it?

The point is that, for the reasons I gave, the definition of sexual orientation in the EA doesn’t prove that in legal terms ‘lesbian’ means a non-trans woman who is only attracted to non-trans women.[/quote]
This is the state of play with this ideology. 'The' doesn't mean 'the' if I say it means something else. The word 'word' does it mean word if I say it means something else.

I can promise you this, Helen, if you or anyone else went to court and tried to make the word lesbian mean man, you wouldn't be able to.

Furthermore, this is why the tide is turning, and Stonewall is coming in for all the stick.

Having to squeeze non-meanings out of words, or mangle the law in order to eliminate common usage, is unacceptable and ultimately pointless.

See what's just happened over the word mother being replaced by birthing parent. And all the bloody backtracking over we only meant it in certain circumstances. Because it's completely unacceptable.

It's almost like the last 60 years of campaigning to have homosexual orientation legitimised, based on sex, has passed you by!

It's just rehashing arguments that have already been done to death here, and on which I’ve made my position clear.

I find your position clear, in that I understand the words you use (albeit sometimes you have explain what definitions you are using), but I don't find it coherent, hence my questions.

I'm trying to uncover a solid foundation beyond "trans people must be what trans ideology says they are, therefore everything else has to bend around that"

@Helen8220

‘Cis’ just means ‘not trans’, as far as I’m concerned.

Well to me, it is at worst an aggressive, othering slur on women designed to remove, oppress women and marginalise them.

At best it is an irrelevant word - given we ALREADY have words for people who 'are not trans' - 'women' and 'men'. You don't need anything else to differentiate people as 'not trans'.

I think it is sometimes justified for people to face sanctions for expressing views that are detrimental to trans people.

Can you give an example of the kind of thing you mean?

I'm trying to uncover a solid foundation beyond "trans people must be what trans ideology says they are, therefore everything else has to bend around that"

I don't think there is one, and therefore Helen couldn't produce one if she tried.

and on which I’ve made my position clear

Your adherence to your quasi religious ideology founded on sex stereotypes, aka gender. Your relative privilege and lack of empathy for women and girls who want to keep single sex spaces for female people only. Your disregard for the words used by exclusively same sex attracted people.

Yes.

@Ereshkigalangcleg it’s almost as if you’re trying to goad me back into the discussion, or just can’t bear not getting the last word?

Fortunately I’ve been having a much more constructive parallel discussion via PM with a GC mumsnetter who saw my initial post above and wanted to actually discuss in good faith what we agree on and what we disagree on. So it hasn’t all been a waste of time

You don't have to reply Helen. Just providing a précis of where we are, as I understand it.

I would genuinely be interested in what actions you think GC people should face "sanctions" for though. Violence? Totally reasonable if it ever happened. Misgendering? Dead naming? Disbelief in gender identity ideology being expressed in the presence of a trans person? Failure to call ourselves uterus bearers? Not so reasonable, arguably. So I'm just trying to find out where you stand. If you feel you're done here, fair enough.

I am reminded of a certain RMW who is also a lawyer, felt similarly confident they could argue that the words for male and female in the equality act could be argued to mean the opposite and also had a very productive discussion with someone by private message.