What are "sex-based roles and responsibilities"? **MNHQ editing title to note that article references 'rules' not 'roles'**

[CuriousPanda]

In their thread about the dangers of letting people mark their gender as non-binary on their passports, Fair Play For Women mentioned that one of the dangers is that it would allow people to "opt out of sex-based rules and responsibilities".

twitter.com/fairplaywomen/status/1414150978782253059

Some in replies and quote tweets remarked that it just sounds like gender roles.
So, what "sex-based rules and responsibilities" is this referring to, exactly?

Disabled rights would be better than race

Sex and disability have the common characteristics that there are some material differences between people with the characteristics snd those without

Whereas sexuality or race there are no material differences, just discrimination

@womanity

It’s clumsily worded for sure.

Maybe something like, if you’re a male gynae doctor, your patients can have a female chaperone. If you were an NB gynae doctor, they wouldn’t (necessarily) have that right.

Or when you’re arrested you have the right to be searched by someone of the same gender. If you’re an NB, and they only have male or female police available, does that mean you can not be searched?

I don’t know. But that’s as close as I can get to it making sense.

It seems from your thread title that you've just misread "sex-based rules" as "sex-based roles".

The meaning is very clear from the tweet: rules that keep men out of women's spaces; and the responsibilities of men to keep out of them.

Sorry, last post meant to be in response to the OP!

Tangentially, the fact that the sexual reoffending risk assessment tool (being only designed for males) apparently "cannot" be used on males who identify as women/with a GRC is another time when following sex-based rules would be important for public safety .

The actual op (as opposed to thread title) also uses the correct wording - i.e. 'rules' not 'roles' - so I'm not at all sure how this confusion has arisen.

@Floisme

The actual op (as opposed to thread title) also uses the correct wording - i.e. 'rules' not 'roles' - so I'm not at all sure how this confusion has arisen.

Well, some of the people on that twitter thread do seem to genuinely think "rules" means "roles", and that the words are entirely interchangeable.

('women can excel in many fields', 'every Terf group thinks women belong in the kitchen' etc...)

Tangentially, the fact that the sexual reoffending risk assessment tool (being only designed for males) apparently "cannot" be used on males who identify as women/with a GRC is another time when following sex-based rules would be important for public safety .

Yes, another male was spared jail a while back because the sex offender programme they wanted to put them on was only for men.

SEX-BASED RULES, not “roles”. Fair Play For Women mentioned SEX-BASED RULES. I’m shouting in the hope that someone at MNHQ will hear and corrdct the mistake in the title of this thread!

I've reported the thread and asked them to fix it.

I never knew pandas could be so disingenuous.

So, what "sex-based rules and responsibilities" is this referring to, exactly?

In the UK, equality legislation and safeguarding laws give men, women and children the right to expect some situations to be single sex.

The right to a same sex doctor for intimate examinations including mammograms.
The right to a same sex domestic abuse practitioner when escaping a violent man.
The right to speak to a same sex police officer when reporting a sexual assault or rape.
The right to only be searched by a same sex officer if incarcerated.
The right to single sex changing rooms, showers, dormitories, hospital wards.
The right to single sex sports, if it is a sex affected activity.

And some of these laws exclude people on the grounds of sex even if they have a GRC.

Stonewall and other pressure groups are trying to change the law and remove these rights, on the grounds of 'acceptance' and 'inclusivity'.

But many of these rules were put in place in response to risk. People were harmed, laws were created to protect others from harm.

If you don't agree with this, then remember you don't get to consent on behalf of other people; then go look up Chesterton's Fence.

Thanks, Thelnebriati

Oh I see -- just noticed some of CuriousPanda's comments on other threads, eg in the US, liberal/left-wing politicians and media outlets are for the most part reliably supportive of trans people. In the UK, it's just a constant flood of anti-trans rhetoric.

OP came to educate us. By 'quoting' a feminist group saying something they didn't say.

For anyone joining the thread after this: earlier comments make sense once you know that the original OP said Fair Play For Women were tweeting about "sex-based roles".

I never knew pandas could be so disingenuous.

They always seem such placid creatures, sitting around munching on a bamboo stick, rather than engaging in preposterous attempts at gaslighting women on parenting forums that biological sex doesn't exist.

So, what "sex-based rules and responsibilities" is this referring to, exactly?

These are matters of Safeguarding girls and women which also frequently concern consent.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

I never knew pandas could be so disingenuous.

They always seem such placid creatures, sitting around munching on a bamboo stick, rather than engaging in preposterous attempts at gaslighting women on parenting forums that biological sex doesn't exist.

This from the Guardian some years ago:

"The truth is that male pandas are shockingly rubbish at the mating game. Male giant pandas are bad at working out when a female is likely to welcome their advances, and bad at knowing what to do next if they do happen to stumble upon a willing mate. In the unlikely event that they get around to having sex, they're often too quick about the whole business to get the female pregnant."

well I never did!