Council of Europe's report on hate against LGBTI people in Europe completely misrepresents gender critical feminism

[WeeBisom]

So the council of Europe wrote a report, and they don't like gender critical feminists very much. Report is here;

assembly.coe.int/LifeRay/EGA/Pdf/TextesProvisoires/2021/20210921-RisingHateLGBTI-EN.pdf

The report is really weird because they get so much of the basics wrong. The the report defines an 'anti gender' stance as "reject[ing] the notion that gender is a social construct, distinct from (biological) sex and not based on a binary." I'm not sure what the 'binary' part is supposed to mean ( I've always thought discussions of the binary is a red herring), but I DON"T reject the idea that gender is a social construct that is distinct from biological sex. So I am supposedly 'anti-gender' by being a gender critical feminist, and yet they can't even correctly describe what it is I supposedly believe.

The report then says that the gender critical movements "work to maintain unequal gender relations in the name of “tradition”, “family values”, “Christian values”, or a so-called “natural order”. Attacks on abortion, access to contraception, comprehensive sexuality education, same-sex marriage, gender, legal gender recognition, access to transition-related medical care, trans and intersex persons’ participation in sport, and ratification and implementation of the Istanbul Convention all form part of this agenda." But this seems to throw many disparate movements together. Gender critical feminists don't believe in christian values or the natural order. They aren't trying to get rid of contraception, abortion or sex education. It's like the report doesn't quite know what its target actually is.

Later on, the authors sulkily report that a self ID law failed in Spain because it didn't get a majority in Parliament despite 70 trans people undergoing hunger strike. The fault is laid at the feet of gender critical feminists " that portray trans people as a threat to society, and in particular to women, deny the identities of trans and non-binary people, suggest that they cannot be trusted to know who they are, and depict parents who are supportive of their trans children as criminals."

They then describe the UK gender critical movement:
"In the United Kingdom, anti-trans rhetoric, arguing that sex is immutable and gender identities not valid, has also been gaining baseless and concerning credibility, at the expense of both trans people’s civil liberties and women’s and children’s rights."

So wait...it's anti trans to say that sex is immutable (meaning unchanging.) But earlier, the report said that it was ANTI gender to reject that sex and gender are separate and different. Gender critical feminists say that gender could change, but sex certainly cannot. So why is it anti-trans to believe the straightforward scientific fact that human beings cannot change their sex? And we also have that weasel word 'valid' pop up. I imagine what they mean is we refuse to believe that a male declaring himself to be a woman just IS a woman in every relevant sense of the word. But that again is because of the sex/gender distinction!

They go on: "The ‘gender-critical’ movement, which wrongly portrays trans rights as posing a particular threat to cisgender women and girls, has played a significant role in this process, notably since the 2018 public consultation on updating the Gender Recognition Act 2004 for England and Wales. In parallel, trans rights organisations have faced vitriolic media campaigns, in which trans women especially are vilified and misrepresented. The gender- critical campaign – which continues to gain momentum, power and financial support – has been instrumental in creating a situation in which legal gender recognition processes still require a clinical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and remain inaccessible to non-binary people and anyone under 18."

Most chillingly, the report has a recommendation for politicians; "Such anti-trans narratives, wrongly portraying trans rights as a threat to women and to others’ rights and insisting on binary categorisations of sex and gender that do not correspond to lived realities, are becoming increasingly pervasive in Europe. Effective criminal and anti-discrimination legislation are more crucial than ever in this context."

I don't know about you, but I'm a little insulted that gender critical feminist are supposedly this massive, evil threat and yet they can't even be bothered to work out what it is we actually believe and campaign for. I imagine that they have to keep spreading lies that we are all fundie christians or else other people will realise we are speaking perfect common sense.

For instance, they continually repeat the lie that trans rights are not a threat to women's rights. Well, if women's right encompass the right to single sex spaces, but any male gets to declare he is of the female sex then there clearly IS a clash. I don't know why they continue to deny that there is a clash here. Simply clapping their hands on their ears and going lalala there's no conflict doesn't actually make the conflict go away.!

Snowdancer, the problem is there is, as far as I can see, a disconnect between what trans women want and what the council of Europe report says. The report says that gender is a social construct, and that gender is different and separate from sex. Well, as a gender critical feminist I believe that is true. So I would say that a trans woman's sex is biologically male, because sex is different and comes apart from gender. This would mean that in areas where sex mattered such as prisons, changing rooms, sports etc, we would go by the sex of the person rather than self ascribed gender. I'm rather confused why one's gender being self declared to be 'woman' means the person is then entitled as of right to be treated as the opposite sex.

@PurgatoryOfPotholes

Snowdancer

Am women entitled to specify that they are only interested in dating other, biological women in their dating profiles on websites, without being either banned or personally abused?

@snowdancer385 Are you there?

That's a very worrying document. And I too am Spartacus.

The whole point of being trans is that trans women aren't "men".

Transwomen are men. If they weren't, what would they be transitioning from?

It's the equivalent of saying "I want gay men to safely live their lives with their wives.

No it doesn't. Transwomen can present however they want. They don't however get to destroys women's safeguards as part of that.

And inclusion of trans women in no way "eliminates" cis women from existence.

It eliminates women's safeguards and protections. 'Cis' women, are required as a validation tool for transwomen. So clearly women's existence is required. Do keep up.

If the exclusion of transwomen from women spaces somehow negates thier existence how come it doesn't negate the existence of women to include them ( especially the none trans none cis kind )

You want to exclude trans women from any and all women's spaces, do you not?

When sex matters, for safeguarding, privacy and dignity, then yes. ‘All women’s spaces’? I think you need to qualify that, please.

For instance, do I think that males should ever be included in breastfeeding groups? No. Do I think if a social group that is of general interest and there is no expectation of it being female’s only discussing issues relating to their bodies, often intimate details, then no need to limit who attends unless it is advertised as ‘female’ only.

Do I believe females who ask for a female health professional should be assured of getting a female health professional, not a male, yes? Why should a male ever feel entitled to deceive a female requesting female only care? (I’d like an answer from Snow on that one).

Because when sex needs to be prioritised over gender, there is usually a well defined need. Accept it and find a solution where both groups needs are met. If males should not be in that single sex space, then they should not be in that space.

I do struggle to take seriously a report that tries to suggest sex isn’t immutable.

It’s just a big mess isn’t it?

Even the sentences do not make sense, and attack attack to women who just want to say that biological sex is real? WTF is going on and why are some people getting paid to bully women?

You want to exclude trans women from any and all women's spaces, do you not?
I would ask
You want to as a biological man intrude disrespectfully and without thought or safeguarding into biological women’s spaces, do you not? Your wishes trump womens’ needs?

for most of Europe, "gender ideology" is an established term in a quite different discourse just as OPs initial quote describes it - a world view of biological essentialism in which sex and gender are one and the same and gender isn't socially constructed and hence, opposing "gender ideology" is synonymous with opposing "feminazis", women's rights and LGB

Very interesting, I didn’t know that. So it’s partly a misunderstanding, or flawed translation. Still, the report is almost comically biased and seems quite incompetently researched.

The whole point of being trans is that trans women aren't "men".

Well, that's one opinion.

One of my takeaways from this is

Those things the report is 'scared' of that are "becoming increasingly pervasive in Europe" ?!... there's a REASON for that.

And day by day, the reasons are growing and growing

[quote OldCrone]There was a (short) thread about this a couple of months ago.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4369580-Debbie-Hayton-on-the-Council-of-Europe

unherd.com/2021/10/europes-war-on-sex/[/quote]
This matters. Council of Europe Resolutions might not be binding on member states, but they can be used to support arguments.

Thanks @OldCrone for citing the piece I wrote about this a couple of months ago. And do write to your MPs. Most I suspect have no clue.this is happening.

Once again the council of europe is about 10 years behind the rest of the western world. What else is new?

There's an interesting discussion to be had about this report so the massive derail by a brand new poster is a shame.

I do always wonder why we attract such visitors and yet the place that grows small, green, furry fruits does not. I just cannot for a minute think why it happens that way...

In relation to the pp who explained the challenge we have with the language used in Europe vs here, I'm not sure there's much we can do about that. I tend to refer to it as Gender Identity Theory, but would expect people who disagree would disagree whatever we call it.

I guess if I read Gender Identity Theory I would assume it was sone kind of defined well understood thing , something commonly understood across experts . I would feel uncomfortable commenting on it without reading at least some respected introductory articles

Whereas I see an ideology as something more emerging from peoples heads , a popular thing not a scientific thing , more vague in its definition , more human ,less high brow

@GrumpyPanda

If I may comment on this as a long-time lurker but fairly new actual poster on MN. I'm not a Brit and based outside of the UK; I also happen to be a social scientist specializing among others in Eastern Europe, so am very much aware of the debate (research and policy level) around populist movements in the region. I am afraid that - much as I share many of the views and concerns if this board - British GC feminists aren't doing themselves any favours with some of the terminology they tend to use. I am still taken aback whenever I see the phrase "gender ideology" used here to mean "gender identity ideology" or "transgender ideology". The fact is that for most of Europe, "gender ideology" is an established term in a quite different discourse just as OPs initial quote describes it - a world view of biological essentialism in which sex and gender are one and the same and gender isn't socially constructed and hence, opposing "gender ideology" is synonymous with opposing "feminazis", women's rights and LGB rights as well as the T. It's a slogan that gets used all the time by Germany's AFD as well as the loathsome clowns in Poland or the Putin stooges who rolled back domestic violence legislation (essentially decriminalizing "first time" violent abuse). Trans issues, visible as I know they have become in the British setting, are barely visible in much of the region so very few people tend to see them as a separate phenomenon. As to other countries in Western Europe, the debate I suspect is where British discourse was, say, pre-2015 - media sympathy and curiosity about the T, especially driven by the youth pages/online editions of major newspapers, by wokerati in the cultural establishment, but really nothing so far approximating the institutional power of Stonewall etc - and hence, little to no backlash so far.

All this to say that- I get where that CoE report is coming from, given that GC is essentially a fringe phenomenon for most of what it covers, where it covers it. Yes, they are getting it completely arse backwards. But also, I can see this happening again, and again, and again, and it would really help to find some different GC vocabulary because slogans like "gender woo" - which I've seen on here quite a bit, understandably - are just completely tainted outside of the British context. Not claiming I have any ready-made solution myself. Obviously for any social movement arriving at shared terms and understandings is immensely difficult. But at least a little more awareness of the problems with the existing one might be a start.

Could this be a 'lost in translation' issue?

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but, unlike English, aren't most European languages grammatically gendered? And most of these languages use the same words for physical sex and grammatical gender, as well as for gender in the sense of sex stereotypes? Again, unlike English.

This could totally muddy the water for any translator unaware of the context.

But also, I can see this happening again, and again, and again, and it would really help to find some different GC vocabulary because slogans like "gender woo" - which I've seen on here quite a bit, understandably - are just completely tainted outside of the British context.

This is an age-old problem. No EU country has English as their official language. Despite Brexit (and I know the CoE is not the EU, but there is an awful lot of cross-over) English continues to be used as a lingua franca across the continent. The problem of international English is that it tends to be influenced by the native language, this leading to gaps in understanding. A very basic example was when I worked in an international HQ in German and wrote "you should...", and the instruction was ignored. Germans read should as "sollen" and must as "mussen". An instruction needed to be "you must". Or a French person referring to Handicapped, as a direct translation of handicappe.

In British English sex is refers to a biological reality, gender to behaviour. The language is clear, though perhaps local translations may not be. I suspect the bigger problem in central and Eastern Europe is the adding of the T into LGBT before the LGB battle for acceptance has been won. Homosexuality does not affect others, whereas transgenderism, especially self-ID, impacts on women's rights. The former could well be sunk because of complications from the latter, sport for example, which will play into the hands of socially conservative politicians.

Yes, I’m not sure how significant the issue of the nomenclature is, to be honest.

It’s a suite of interconnected issues, and it’s not easily defined, and honestly it wouldn’t matter what you called it- it’s the effects and challenging them that is key.

The point of using the terminology “ideology” is to force the distinction that we are not talking about individuals but about, well- about an ideology. A set of ideas, principles and practices that has taken root. We’re not critiquing individual trans people (although that does happen, as it can be illustrative of how an idea manifests as a behaviour), but critiquing how the thinking plays out across parts of society.

What a mess!

France has adopted "Woke" - "Le Wokisme" to mean the same thing we use it to mean.

I'm sure Europe will catch up with "gender ideology" to mean basically "transgender ideology" or will find a version of the term that they can use that means what we mean by "gender ideology". We can't really do much about that.

Anyway, yes I agree shame about the derail (the rather angry one!).

France uses a (by uk standards) much more offensive term: islamo-gauchisme

if you don't support trans women being treated the same way as cis women, you do not support "the same rights".

I support all human beings having the same human rights. These include the right to single-sex spaces where necessary. It’s as simple as that.

You can order us to believe ‘men are women if they say they are’. But you cannot make us believe it, no matter how loudly you shout or how often you repeat it.

if you don't support transwomen being treated the same way as men, you do not support "the same rights".

Why should any males be excluded from men's jails, men's toilets, men's dating apps, men's recovery programmes, men's healthcare, if they do not present or think stereotypically?

@thinkingaboutLangCleg

if you don't support trans women being treated the same way as cis women, you do not support "the same rights".

I support all human beings having the same human rights. These include the right to single-sex spaces where necessary. It’s as simple as that.

You can order us to believe ‘men are women if they say they are’. But you cannot make us believe it, no matter how loudly you shout or how often you repeat it.

Quite.

You might as well say that if you don't support adult age players in having the same rights as children that this is a failure to support the age player's human rights.

When the fact is that the adult does not have the characteristics those rights are based on, does not need those rights but only wishes to have them to allow them the freedom of taking their identity into all situations unimpeded, and it does not in any way recognise the impact on removing those boundaries, rights or loss of protection for children.

It is not a 'right' for a person to be counted as something they are in fact not, and to have access to resources based on a characteristic which they do not in fact have. Particularly when this impacts on the rights of the group they wish to join, who cannot identify out of the burden of that characteristic, and for whom it is not a personal choice to have. Other people have rights too.

It is perfectly possible to balance the situation by providing additional and more diverse resources so that all could have their needs met. But while females say fine, add more diversity, add more options, the genderism position is that only females losing all sex based rights for male people's freedoms will do.

Which really isn't terribly in keeping with respect for human rights for all, is it? It's more 'more rights for males and less for females because female rights present unacceptable boundaries'.