Womens and Equalities report on GRA to be published tomorrow 21 Dec

[Imnobody4]

twitter.com/Commonswomequ/status/1472915228392398855?t=fm9kVI9s31fOBPCnBSNYqg&s=19

Our report into the Reform of the Gender Recognition Act is being published tomorrow. Take a look at the work we have done relating to this inquiry over the past year: t.co/uOlY23nhuN t.co/l123I2UQyQ

Still haven't published my evidence. Is this usual? Sneaking it out befote Xmas - suspicious or what?

Artichoke leaves, you are so right. The teeny, teeny number of men in this argument have been fawned over and pandered to at every turn.

The immensely large number of women who contributed passionately to this consultation are all evil bigots

Our shrill voices are upsetting

We lack gravitas

It's because we are bloody women

[quote barleybadminton]I agree; it was obvious that those following this political agenda never find the evidence or voice of female people, or their needs, compelling.

The report was largely produced by females. They just don't happen to agree. That's unsurprising, lots of females don't agree and many think the aims of the gender critical movement will be detrimental to females if they are ever successful. Sarah Ahmed's piece on that was interesting: feministkilljoys.com/2021/10/31/gender-critical-gender-conservative/comment-page-1/[/quote]
Yeah right. The aims of protecting women's sport, women rape victims and vulnerable children are detrimental to women and children.

Utter nonsense.

Good job Liz Truss thinks it's a load of old bollocks. And no one else takes them in the slightest bit seriously. When you have an extreme porn advocate, an unhinged trans organisation, and a flasher who exposes their penis, as your previous contributors, your credibility is in the pan.

[quote barleybadminton]I agree; it was obvious that those following this political agenda never find the evidence or voice of female people, or their needs, compelling.

The report was largely produced by females. They just don't happen to agree. That's unsurprising, lots of females don't agree and many think the aims of the gender critical movement will be detrimental to females if they are ever successful. Sarah Ahmed's piece on that was interesting: feministkilljoys.com/2021/10/31/gender-critical-gender-conservative/comment-page-1/[/quote]
Wow - that link was a lot of words to say fuck all except "this thing is a thing because I say it is a thing".

I particularly liked "Judith Butler has taught us that the incoherence of the arguments of anti-gender movements are doing something. The more arguments against something are incoherent, the more what they are against becomes vague."

Presumably then, in contrast to the anti-gender incoherence, you can exercise the razor-sharp coherence that so typifies genderism and explain how, if gender is so unknowable it cannot be perceived by others, only self-declared, it can be more relevant to social interaction than sex, even though sex is, for the vast majority of humans, clearly perceived by others who react to and act upon it and was the basis upon which female-bodied people have been oppressed for millennia?

And let me clear, this is not an academic question about the meaning of words or how many genderists can dance on the head of a pin.

I don't need you to absolutely define sex beyond the rough physical definitions that were used, and indeed re still used, to disadvantage female people vs male.

I don't care that a classification may not apply to 100% of humanity. A classification under which half of more than 99% suffered and continue to suffer material real world disadvantages has material consequences that should not be hand waved away.

It is, at heart, a very simple, practical question - why does a thing that cannot be known require material accommodation, but a thing that is easily known and demonstrably affects female lives does not?

The fact they are biologically female does not make this politics any less sexist, or incapable of considering the needs of all females instead of the ones who think like they do. While rubbishing and decrying all females who have different opinions as wrong.

You do realise that's what many females on the opposing side think of the gender critical movement don't you?

@barleybadminton

The fact they are biologically female does not make this politics any less sexist, or incapable of considering the needs of all females instead of the ones who think like they do. While rubbishing and decrying all females who have different opinions as wrong.

You do realise that's what many females on the opposing side think of the gender critical movement don't you?

So what? Let them share spaces with men. No one's stopping them. And we can have our female only spaces. That way everyone's catered for.

Really badminton. You should be a little bit more inclusive.

@barleybadminton

The fact they are biologically female does not make this politics any less sexist, or incapable of considering the needs of all females instead of the ones who think like they do. While rubbishing and decrying all females who have different opinions as wrong.

You do realise that's what many females on the opposing side think of the gender critical movement don't you?

What are "females", out of interest?

As far as I understand it, under genderism it simply isn't valid to identify female-bodied people as a meaningful social group.

Certainly it is not acceptable to suggest they may, as a group, have sex-specific needs or suffer any sex-based disadvantages, and therefore may legitimately need single-sex spaces, rights, protections or provisions.

@barleybadminton

The fact they are biologically female does not make this politics any less sexist, or incapable of considering the needs of all females instead of the ones who think like they do. While rubbishing and decrying all females who have different opinions as wrong.

You do realise that's what many females on the opposing side think of the gender critical movement don't you?

Your argument is the same as the report committee's: that female people who do not put the needs and interests of male people who identify as women first, should not be heard, or provided for, or permitted equal consideration.

You feel this is a just punishment for their political failure to be the 'right sort'.

You do you. I happen to think this is morally wrong, and that inclusion includes female people not just male ones, and that a women's brief has a duty to meet the needs of all females, not just the ones of certain politics.

I also think that it's now proven that TQ politics and full female equality, inclusion and access are fundamentally incompatible, because females wanting such things are seen as hostile and unacceptable by this political agenda. Hence the two should be separated.

@barleybadminton

The fact they are biologically female does not make this politics any less sexist, or incapable of considering the needs of all females instead of the ones who think like they do. While rubbishing and decrying all females who have different opinions as wrong.

You do realise that's what many females on the opposing side think of the gender critical movement don't you?

What do you think is sexist about gender critical arguments?

And which females do you think are not being considered?

I also think that it's now proven that TQ politics and full female equality, inclusion and access are fundamentally incompatible, because females wanting such things are seen as hostile and unacceptable by this political agenda. Hence the two should be separated.

Absolutely. The rights conflict.

They need to be completely different.

*So what? Let them share spaces with men. No one's stopping them. And we can have our female only spaces. That way everyone's catered for.

Reallybadminton. You should be a little bit more inclusive.*

Absolutely bang on.

[quote barleybadminton]I agree; it was obvious that those following this political agenda never find the evidence or voice of female people, or their needs, compelling.

The report was largely produced by females. They just don't happen to agree. That's unsurprising, lots of females don't agree and many think the aims of the gender critical movement will be detrimental to females if they are ever successful. Sarah Ahmed's piece on that was interesting: feministkilljoys.com/2021/10/31/gender-critical-gender-conservative/comment-page-1/[/quote]
The reeport was largely produced by privileged females captured or cowed by an ideology for a range of reasons not unconnected to their sex and the gendered expectations around that.

They have the privilege of being able to hold luxury beliefs (or to pretend to hold them).

@barleybadminton

That's unsurprising, lots of females don't agree and many think the aims of the gender critical movement will be detrimental to females if they are ever successful

What do you think the "aims of the gender critical movement" are, exactly?

I'm gender critical. My aims are:

1. to acknowledge, challenge, mitigate in the short term and eventually in the long term dismantle the gendered socialisation and cultural expectations layered onto individuals based on their physical sex

2. to acknowledge, challenge, mitigate in the short term and eventually in the long term dismantle the norms that make political, social, cultural and economic power less accessible to female people because of the asymmetric demands placed on them by gestation and childcare

3. to acknowledge the different physical capabilities of male and female bodies, and where these create disadvantages or risks to one sex disproportionately over the other, mitigate those risks

4. to work towards a society where sex is less significant and so sex-based protections are less necessary than they are today

In what way would any of those be detrimental to female people?

And which females do you think are not being considered?

I think any attempt to police public spaces on the basis of birth sex will be a nightmare for gender nonconforming women, intersex women and trans men (as well as trans women), and ultimately will only end up socially reinforcing gender norms. And I think the relaxed attitude many in the gender critical movement have to working with the conservative right is helping to entrench patriarchal structures and allow often vile misogynists like Rod Liddle and Alex Salmond, or deeply reactionary politicians like Truss, to corrupt and hijack feminism and steer it towards the right. I think the legacay of the gender critical movement's allegiance with the right could create a horrifying future for the next generations of women and I understand why so many young women have deep concerns about it.

That's absolute bollocks, @barleybadminton on every level.

I think any attempt to police public spaces on the basis of birth sex will be a nightmare for gender nonconforming women, intersex women and trans men (as well as trans women), and ultimately will only end up socially reinforcing gender norms.

I don't see how keeping places which are sex-segregated, like prisons and hospital wards, as single sex will 'socially reinforce gender norms'. Could you explain how that works?

As for spaces like toilets and changing rooms, third spaces would seem a reasonable solution for those who don't like the single sex options, wouldn't they?

I think any attempt to police public spaces on the basis of birth sex will be a nightmare for gender nonconforming women, intersex women and trans men (as well as trans women), and ultimately will only end up socially reinforcing gender norms.

It worked perfectly fine for donkeys years, it's only since males have decided to force themselves into said spaces on the back of this ideology, refusing to take or hear the word 'no' that there is a problem.

@barleybadminton

And which females do you think are not being considered?

I think any attempt to police public spaces on the basis of birth sex will be a nightmare for gender nonconforming women, intersex women and trans men (as well as trans women), and ultimately will only end up socially reinforcing gender norms. And I think the relaxed attitude many in the gender critical movement have to working with the conservative right is helping to entrench patriarchal structures and allow often vile misogynists like Rod Liddle and Alex Salmond, or deeply reactionary politicians like Truss, to corrupt and hijack feminism and steer it towards the right. I think the legacay of the gender critical movement's allegiance with the right could create a horrifying future for the next generations of women and I understand why so many young women have deep concerns about it.

What is a 'gender nonconforming woman' if you believe that woman is your gender?

It makes sense if you believe a woman is any female person, and their gender as feminine or whatever is imposed on them.
But if you think a woman is any person of womanly gender then by definition they are gender-conforming by being a woman.

As a gender non conforming women I can live with whatever problems arise out of making certain facilities single sex, and most other women will choose them too and as others said, those that would like share with men can do so freely.

I think any attempt to police public spaces on the basis of birth sex will be a nightmare for gender nonconforming women, intersex women and trans men (as well as trans women), and ultimately will only end up socially reinforcing gender norms.

But (and leaving aside for now that many gender non-conforming females, including trans men, say they are ok with occasionally being challenged and explaining themselves as part and parcel of maintaining the sex-based protections that they themselves, as female people, also need ) how exactly is policing based on an entirely undetectable inner identity more practical than policing based on physical features that are clear on first glance for at least 90% of humans, and clear on second glance for most of the remaining 10%?

Unless your belief is that "policing" itself is a problem, which can only mean you believe there is in fact no practical need to ever segregate men and women, not in physical spaces for physical or psychological safety, nor in metaphorical spaces like woman-only prizes, shortlists or training opportunities, and therefore it's totally fine that "women's", and indeed "men's", provisions either cease to exist entirely, or become self-expression choices open to all, like ones political values, taste in music, or shoes.

But if that is indeed what you believe, the next question has to be that if one believes the right thing is for "women's" provision to be open to all without "policing", does that not entirely destroy the value of giving trans women access anyway? After all, without "policing" they would provide neither safety from males (the figleaf under which TRAs make their demand that trans women must have access to female protections) nor the validation of being accepted as a woman in a way that other males are not (the true motivation under that figleaf).

In my day we had goths, punks, skinheads, dykes and no one EVER had a problem telling they were female. That is absolute pure 100% bullshit saying that enforcing single sex spaces will cause problems for gender non conforming women and that it will enforce gender stereotypes. I'll say it again, Bullshit.

@Apollo441

In my day we had goths, punks, skinheads, dykes and no one EVER had a problem telling they were female. That is absolute pure 100% bullshit saying that enforcing single sex spaces will cause problems for gender non conforming women and that it will enforce gender stereotypes. I'll say it again, Bullshit.

100%.

Bullshit is exactly what it is. Same as always.

So fucking tiresome.

I think the legacay of the gender critical movement's allegiance with the right could create a horrifying future for the next generations of women and I understand why so many young women have deep concerns about it.

And I think the horrifying future where 'intersectional' feminists (or whatever word you choose to use) have alied themselves with organisations, policies and individuals who are perfectly comfortable with rape and death threats being made against women unless they fall in line with the 'acceptable' belief, is already here. Look at how Joanna Cherry has been treated. Rape threats made against her deemed credible enough by Police Scotland to require protection for her were ignored by the leader of her Party who is also the First Minister of Scotland. This is just one of many such examples.

The 'allegiance with the far right' (a concept borrowed from the very different political landscape in the US) appears to consist of agreeing with basic scientific concepts such as 'the sky is blue' or 'humans are a dimorphic species'.