Sex/Gender Wars - What would be a win?

[joolzfromyork]

As the Title ...

What's a win? for you individually?

I read here .. on Twatter and one or two other places and it is clear that for some GC Women (and Men) a win would be the banning of Puberty blockers being given to those you see as being children...

At the other extreme ... the banning completely of Transition and any medical interventions to help Transsexual people...

It's reasonable to believe that the majority view falls somewhere between these two points ... but where?

There is no real consensus that has emerged which all GC people subscribe to ...

So, I wonder ... what's a win? what would make you believe that this issue had been solved/dealt with to your satisfaction ?

Anyone like to have a stab at this one?

The question involves no trickery, Honest opinions - however blunt - are sought (Hopefully the mods will adopt a light touch ...) but I am interested because I remain convinced that a path to compromise exists ... and whilst we won't find it here on MN, I would like to understand better what people 'really' want, as distinct from what the loudest voices claim they want ... what do you want to happen?

Of course, since I am asking the question, it goes without saying that extra credit can be gained through the use of 'Flippancy' and 'Sarcasm' ... so, by all means, Have at it.

But if anyone could/would have a go at answering the question, I'd be grateful

ha! unfortunate xpost, I take it all back!

although the post doesn't seem to make any sense and now I am puzzled

@BernardBlackMissesLangCleg

What don't you understand ? Can I help ?

you have made lavish use of strike through - may I enquire what it is intended to convey?

I have removed everything from my original question that served to show the wide expanse of feeling that I have come across on this subject ... and as previously stated, not all that information comes from MN but has been read on Twatter (for instance).

In order to encourage answers to the actual question I am seeking to ask rather than focusing on the way the question was posed, I have removed everything from the original question except ...

Sex/Gender Wars - What would be a win?

This feels less like a discussion than a requirement to dance.

So at this point I'm out.

I think that ,for most women, it is not really a question of a win but rather not suffering a loss; the loss of our single sex spaces, our ability to describe ourselves and our right to be accurately counted and our particular physical needs to be taken into account. As for children, again it is that no child should suffer the loss of the right to be different, the loss of fertility and sexual fulfilment . There is no winning here as we are not fighting for something extra but rather, trying desperately to hang onto what little we already have.

To me it’s not ‘winning’ because that makes it sound like a competition, like getting one over on trans people, and it is most definitely not about that. It’s about a return to sanity and science. I’d like Gender Ideology to disappear up its own bottom quite frankly because IMO it has little to do with genuinely trans people and glorifies regressive stereotypes.

Anyway, I’d like to see:

• The GRA amended so that trans people can have documents in their chosen gender but their long birth certificate remains unchanged and keeps their birth sex. That way they have privacy and the courtesy of largely being treated as the gender they wish, but the truth/their sex remains on record. This would make it easier where sex matters.

• Puberty blockers banned for children, counselling being the first treatment not affirmation, and transition/surgery banned for under 21s (really I think under 25s would be more sensible, but 21 is a compromise)

• Prisons, refuges and the like to be single sex. Extra facilities set up for trans people if needed.

• Crimes recorded correctly - by sex

• a return to the 70s/80s attitude where boys and girls could wear and do what they want without thinking they must be ‘trans’. I’d like this explicitly taught in schools.

• I’d like medical support for trans people with genuine dysphoria and support throughout their lives with specific medical issues. I’d also like support for detransitioners.

@Artichokeleaves

This feels less like a discussion than a requirement to dance.

So at this point I'm out.

it does, doesn't it?

you could, yanno, talk to women like they were actual people rather than things in a petri dish. that would be nice OP

I could live with recognition and acceptance of 5 genders, protection of single sex spaces and healthy open discussion on issues including risks and benefits, without pile-ons and death threats (so that would probably mean dismantling certain online platforms).

@Artichokeleaves

This feels less like a discussion than a requirement to dance.

So at this point I'm out.

Dancing, you say? How about this?

twitter.com/lilylilymaynard/status/1446451061493993491?s=21

Let's try this OP, you answer a question:

how would you like the following to be segregated, if at all

• secondary school toilets and changing rooms
• prisons
• sport
• hospital wards

??

@joolzfromyork

I have removed everything from my original question that served to show the wide expanse of feeling that I have come across on this subject ... and as previously stated, not all that information comes from MN but has been read on Twatter (for instance).

In order to encourage answers to the actual question I am seeking to ask rather than focusing on the way the question was posed, I have removed everything from the original question except ...

Sex/Gender Wars - What would be a win?

Unfortunately you left the sentence in about not expecting MN to agree on anything so it's still a disingenuous question.

That aside plenty of posters have given you what I would regard as quite sensible answers. What do you think of them?

It's not sex gender wars.

It's vagina people trying to fight against the very recent and extraordinary removal of anything single sex, a limited number of things in place for very good reason.

The removal of any any all language that meant until very recently the half the female people on the planet.

The denial that sex has any real relevance but to a limited amount of things related to our reproductive system.

The positioning of the 3 billion or do bodies with vaginas on the planet as privileged.

And of course. The way we are increasingly referred to by our cunts.

It's not a war. We are fighting back to protect the fundamentals of bodies with vaginas everywhere. Girls women elderly women.

And we are losing.

No more space without males.
No more universally understood words to refer to us all, all the females in the human race as one group.
That leaves us utterly fucked.

Oh and the main thing I meant to ask you OP.

What is your answer to the question in your OP? Fairs fair.

As a transwoman joolz, what would you consider to be a win?

It would be interesting to see these questions asked of the wealthy powerful organisations and individuals currently removing child safeguarding and women's rights. Stonewall, GIRES, Mermaids, Gendered Intelligence, Press for Change and countless other powerful people embedded in government and positions of influence. You know, the ones with all the influence who have got us to this awful position. What's their end game? What do they want to happen?

I’d like tolerance of GC views. Frankly, I do not need everyone to agree with me. If other people feel they have a gender identity and that is important to them, then I don’t feel the need to challenge them and prove they are wrong. I’d like the same courtesy extended to me and my views.

The current insanity whereby anyone who doesn’t believe a trans woman is literally a woman in the same way as any other is painted as a reprehensible bigot and the associated culture of shaming and intimidation is terrifying to me. It’s also unlike anything I’ve known in my life. I cannot think of another issue where I would be afraid to say what I think, but I certainly do not raise this topic.

Equality Act guidance changed to state that where single-sex provisions have been in place, organisations can only opt-out of applying the sex-based exceptions after showing that they have consulted with all groups of women who would be most effected by such a change, by putting arrangements in place that ensure that all women can continue to equitably and easily access the single-sex provision elsewhere that the service is proposing to remove, a detailed and thorough Equality Impact Assessment that considers the impact of turning a single-sex provision into a mixed-sex one.

The Equality Act amended to make sex-based exceptions opt-out rather than opt-in for a limited number of provisions (such as prisons, hospital wards, women's dorms, sports, programmes, course, scholarships, awards created to address sex-based inequalities etc). So that these provisions are single-sex by default while others can be single-sex by choice.

Come on OP - 40 odd replies of mostly informative suggestions.

Play fair and give us your suggestions. What are your wins?

@OvaHere

No medical transition for under 18s.

Women's spaces returned to female only - hospital wards, prisons, changing areas, sports etc...

Public toilets I accept cannot be policed in some circumstances but I would like women to be able to call for help or report dodgy behaviour without fear of being criminalised. All this nonsense about not ever questioning who is in there needs to stop.

I want to be able to talk about women's rights without qualifiers or accusations.

I don't want to be forced (either legally or by the use of threat and fear) to pretend men are women when it's not in my best interests to do so.

Same

@BernardBlackMissesLangCleg

Let's try this OP, you answer a question:

how would you like the following to be segregated, if at all

• secondary school toilets and changing rooms
• prisons
• sport
• hospital wards

??

okay (apologies for the length of this post)

1. Secondary school toilets and changing rooms

Girls in one, Boys in the other and if any Trans kids are in the school they get separate facilities too.

1. prisons

I've already given my thoughts on this one so rather than restate/cover old ground ...

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a4269798-Barack-Obama-heartbroken-by-wave-of-anti-trans-bills?

Its a long thread ut I have attached 1 post to the end of this message ...

1. sport

Also covered above but stated simply Men vs Men & Women vs Women and if necessary Trans people against Trans people.

1. hospital wards

hmmm... I don't know the terms of this. The last time I was in hospital the wards were mixed but each room within the ward was single sex/gender. Is it still like that? I don't know so cannot fairly pass a comment

Attached *

@merrymouse
Quite happy to believe that, but you would need to first acknowledge that two separate groups are involved and that there is a conflict of interests.

I have no problem at all acknowledging that multiple groups have an interest/conflict.

To pick up on the three things that you mentioned in your original post

Prisons, sports, puberty blockers?

Prisons? well its just got completely out of hand now hasn't it ? But we'll come back to that issue last

Sports? The problem we have here (imnsho) is simply solved.

If you (generic) are good at sport and also want to transition then ...

Choose:

Transition Now and Give Up your Sport (as something you do hoping to be a professional/Olympian/ Amateur or School Champion)

OR

Delay Transition and continue to compete in your sport against competitors who share your birth sex.

You CANNOT

Transition and continue to compete in your new gender - this is the option that needs to be removed. (without any bollocks about Testosterone levels etc)

It would be a hard choice for all committed sportspeople but it is a Choice that they can make individually, Sport or Transition, Whichever is more important to them and if they choose sport they can do so knowing that Transition remains an option when Sports careers are done.

Puberty Blockers ?

Ugh. Never took them myself and remain unconvinced that anyone can take blockers for a period of time and (perhaps after a change of heart/mind)stop taking them and have no long term damage.

So ... lets make the minimum age to use Blockers at least 16 ... and yes, doing so would negate the benefits of taking blockers, since people are well in to puberty at 16.

But ... if an individual wants to use blockers at the age of 16 then ok ... because all human beings have autonomy over their own bodies and life decisions. But use of blockers should not be available to anyone who is not in a recognised care pathway, and has not been attending psychotherapy for at least 2 years From the age of 16 - which means blockers can only be accessed by people over the age of 18 (and frankly, I am not sure what the point of a blocker at that age would be ... probably -hopefully- minimal or none).

Now, the Prison thing ... is it fucking stupid or what?

What follows will get me slapped by both sides of this debate but it is my considered opinion (whatever that might mean smile )

WE need to give serious consideration to the introduction of Two Tier 'Gender Recognition Certificates'.

Tier 1 is available to anyone who wishes to use/enter a care pathway which may or may not lead to medical/surgical bodily changes.

Holding a Tier 1 certificate confers NO rights to be sent to a Woman's Prison (or use changing rooms etc used by your target Gender) It simply permits an individual to declare their intent to undertake gender change (for want of a better phrase) and gives access to medical services (Psychotherapy, Hormone Therapy etc)

Tier 2 would only be available to individuals who have completed both social and medical transition (what we refer to as Post-Op). This tier would give access to a Women's Prison if req (and looking at the whole prison question over the last few years, it strikes me that some men make outlandish claims to be women because they think it will gain them an advantage ... so remove all the advantages ... yes, anyone can transition, even a prisoner but if this is a new discovery on the prisoners part then said prisoner will be entitled to a Tier 1 GRC and thus must serve their sentence in a prison that matches their birth sex.

OUCH grin

I know that no one likes these sorts of compromises (Whichever side of the debate you may be on) but some kind of compromise must be reached ... maybe (probably) not this but something similar ...

Oh and just to confirm, TRA's do NOT speak for me or on my behalf ... EVER.

Have a good day ...

Thanks for replying with your thoughts On first glance you seem to be pretty well aligned with the GC women of MN - so am not sure why you thought you wouldn't be.

I suspect you're a million miles away from what TRAs want though.

Oh I missed the original post main question. Know it's been ditched.

I have zero issues with adults having cosmetic surgery. It's up to them in the end. On the NHS it's very hard to get cosmetic surgery. Even sometimes to try and return something to how it was before illness/ treatment etc. If the NHS consultants etc take the view that something is a clinician need over whatever thresholds in place to protect resources etc. And that cosmetic surgery is seen as essential for the patient with whatever level of confidence they use that it will be successful and will result in a very significant improvement for the patients long term health and wellbeing. That's up to the NHS. Otherwise, and for most, cosmetic procedures that feel anything from wanted to essentially needed by the person and do not meet NHS thresholds can be and are done privately.

My other views-

Puberty blockers are very strong drugs and there is definitely not agreement they are harmless and irreversible. Puberty is a time of massive change. Across the board. Psychologically, physically, emotionally. Changes in the brain and whole endocrine system etc.

They can be used for precocious puberty but it's recognised that they can cause any number of issues.

Much much more research is needed to ascertain the full picture of these drugs if they are to be given to children with no medical (physical) indication. At the moment one side days. Safe fine. No debate. Other side. Studies indicating issues, concerns about prescribing with inadequate assessment. Tavistock were not following up properly which is shocking.

It seems to me obvious. I mean surely it is obvious. That puberty is a very complicated process that affects our whole bodies and our brains. As with other things to do with brain etc it's not fully understood, not everything. To halt this fundamental part of human development is just really incredibly extreme. It doesn't need studies to know that. Stating it's safe and fine when that is very very far from known is taking risks with children. Many can't understand that approach at all.

The way double mastectomy is being normalised as no big deal for girls and young women. In ?USA some at 14 I think? 14yo are no way mature enough to decide that. That's just a fact. Removing healthy body parts to meet an aesthetic.

Has the popularly and normalisation of breast enhancements led to a similar view of bread removal? And WHY for non binary girls and women is no breasts the thing? Why is the default to aim for no breasts IE male? That's telling in so many ways.