Still Genuinely Willing To Discuss In Good Faith

[Catiette]

I've taken the plunge and started a new thread. In the interests of good manners, an addendum that I may be disappearing to work for a while myself, as this has all been far too interesting to allow me to achieve any of my urgent weekend work to-dos today - I hope that, in the light of that, creating this follow-up thread isn't bad form. I just thought other people may want to continue discussing these issues (mainly, now, the redefinition of woman, and statistical trends re. women globally), and I'd definitely dip back in when the urge to procrastinate overcomes me next. No worries, of course, if people think we did it all to death on the old thread - we were fairly thorough, methinks(!), so can also just let Good Faith Discussion #2 rapidly fade into Mumsnet obscurity. 😀

Yeah. Wouldn’t it be grand if it was resolved so easily?

I was merely musing as to why some people would not think about all the usage of female toilets.

Surely it is important to understand the motivations and what the desired outcomes are so in discussions you can assess whether something is a workable suggestion or not, or whether it is relevant or not.

When I worked in public buildings, I'd quite often get men asking me to check on their female partners who had been in the ladies' toilets for a while. Most of the time, it wasn't anything more than the woman taking a bit longer usual and their partner getting impatient. But quite a few times, I was able to signpost the woman to support services. There's a reason why the toilets in many public buildings have posters with numbers for domestic abuse services etc on the back of the doors. The toilets can act as a refuge for women who need it.

"Does it matter if there is an agenda or not? Equally, does it matter if there is a right wing agenda or not? I'm happy for these to both be rhetorical questions"

I'm not sure why you are bringing up 'right wing agenda' in the context of this 'discussion' - but I'm intrigued to understand why don't think it matters if there is a TRA agenda?

Can it really be that this has all just been an exercise in posing rhetorical questions that you don't really want to enage with in any depth - just a parlour game predicated upon inter-personal aesthetics?

Yes I think it matters hugely. We need to know what the end point is.

A lot of women started referring to trans women as women and "she" in order to be kind.

But if the end point is the complete erasure of biological sex in law and language, to be replaced by a concept of "gender identity" that we neither have nor believe in, and the inability to have any single sex spaces or services or sports from which biological males can be excluded, many of us are absolutely not OK with that.

Our boundaries haven't shifted, they've been trampled all over.

There is omething in BonfireLady's responses and posts are very barrister-like. A barrister will argue black is white all day long and twist and turn and put on a very good performace of being reasonable - yet there is still an agenda. There is always an agenda.

Ok, so if we did a thought experiment whereby June and "Melissa" (formerly Kevin) work together. June just got married. She is a better worker than Melissa, objectively speaking - she gets better feedback and appraisals. Since her wedding, however, her boss has gone a bit cold on her. There's a promotion opportunity and it is given to Melissa, without June even being invited to apply. June suspects she is suffering discrimination due to the assumption she will soon get pregnant and have a family. Do you agree this is sex discrimination and deserves protection? If so, is it ok for female organisations to centre this type of discrimination?

Or, June was previously assaulted and still gets panic attacks around sex or intimate examinations from time to time. She would like to have a smear test done by another female. On the day, "Melinda" is visibly male. June freezes and panics at the idea of a male putting a steel object inside her vagina. Can she request someone else, or should she have to suffer through it so as not to hurt melinda's feelings?

There's only a point discussing theory if it helps resolve practical situations. What are your thoughts?

Yes Margot. Even rhetorical discussions need to have at least an agreed degree of material reality, I feel.

And every group with a political aim has an agenda. Because it directly feeds into the desired outcome. Discussing theory/theories is a wonderful thing. Knowing how that discussion fits in the achievement of the overall objective gives any discussion relevance. Even blue sky thinking.

Hence language is important for many people. Along with so much, it conveys the agenda of the other person just as it conveys the progress that can be expected or has been made. It certainly is a quite reliable predictor of the already formed opinions of a poster as well as their agenda. Whether the agenda is explicitly stated or not, or whether it is even clearly known by the poster or just a passing thought.

But yes, I think many people feel that understanding motivations is important for assessing agenda and credibility too. And understanding agenda is important for many people to assess how much time to invest in a thread such as this.

I think this is a clear illustrator or why our words need to have clear meaning. With gender identity Jane has no protection or way to challenge legally injustices.

Woman in law needs to be biologically woman or sexism wins

Yep, I would agree with this. But I'm trying to express (probably badly, I accept) that it doesn't matter to me whether there is an agenda or not. I'm going to expect that there is always an agenda in every situation.

I'm happy to share my own and my own motivations. No, it's not an intellectual exercise for me. It's deeply personal. Just as has been articulated above with "the trans agenda", my own agenda has changed over time with shifting goalposts. I'll try and articulate it as best I can, together with the motivations.

1. Fact: My adolescent autistic daughter told me she was transgender and wanted puberty blockers
   Action that I took: lots and lots of research, including reading science papers, articles and forums from every viewpoint. Including from media that I would never normally read/watch (Daily Mail, GB News, Pink News, Jammidodger) and listening to people in the LGBT+ community
   Motivation: Making sure that my daughter had access to the right care and did not make choices about her body that she would regret later in life

2. Fact/opinion: I realised that she was highly unlikely to get the right care from a balanced unbiased health system, because it was all skewed towards "gender affirming care" and did not account for her the distress that she was experiencing in relation to her changing body and her autism
   Action that I took: best explained in an article that I wrote. I'll post the link below. TL:DR version: I became my daughter's therapist and advocate, making sure that she accessed the right kind of support, even if that meant making difficult decisions along the way. To achieve this I took as objective a stance as I could, just like I do when I post on this board, despite my fear for her health.
   Motivation: the mental and physical health of my daughter.

3. Fact: JKR and the Isla Bryson case woke something up in me about the wider implications of gender identity
   Action that I took: I widened my reading and research beyond gender identity and autism. Including joining this board and mostly lurking
   Motivation: Getting my head around a very complex subject so that I can remain balanced when supporting my daughter.

4. Fact: Realising that I wanted to help others in similar situations to our family
   Action that I took: writing the article that I have linked below, joining in discussions on this board instead of just lurking
   Motivation: see fact

At no point have I wanted, nor do I want, to convince anyone that they shouldn't have a belief in their own gender identity. However, where that belief impacts others' freedom, safety or well-being, I will oppose it. Primarily in support of autistic adolescent girls but also lately more widely.

Hopefully that helps to clarify my position. I know I don't need to defend it but I do agree completely with you that it's difficult to talk to someone if you can't work out their motivations.
Link to article

I'm not a barrister. That's certainly an interesting interpretation of my agenda and I guess I can see why you thought it.
You may still feel the same after you've read my post that does outline my "agenda". Perhaps not though.

This "I want have a good faith conversation " always requires people to agree that TWAW as first principles.
Which is not a "good faith conversation" from the outset.

Ps @NotHavingIt I strongly believe that if I had not "put on such a good performance of being reasonable" when I was helping my daughter (personally I would describe it as remaining as objective as possible rather than performing), I would not have secured the outcomes that I did in my daughter's education or health care. Instead, I believe I would have been dismissed. Unless I genuinely listen to views that differ from my own, I can't do this.

Agreed. A great articulation.

There's a fair bit to unpick in the sex discrimination at work example (there could be other factors at play) but I've personally experienced this discrimination when I was on maternity leave - I fought it in a tribunal (in my barrister-like way 😁) and won. I'm sure there will be others on this board who have too. Sadly, it's a very real problem and the fact that transwomen can't get pregnant does add an interesting new dimension on it.

The particularly serious point here is that if "Melissa" gets a gender recognition certificate and becomes legally recognised as female, can June even bring a sex discrimination claim on the basis that she has been treated unfairly compared to someone of the opposite sex?

Because I would interpret the Haldane judgment to mean that she can't.

All very good points. However, unless someone lays out their agenda (like I did above), it's all guesswork as to what someone else's agenda is. I'll use places like this board to see information and a mix of opinion but I don't worry too much about the end agenda of others. I'll just make my own assumptions e.g. I think it's fair for me to assume that my agenda and a neo-Nazi agenda are nowhere near aligned, despite the fact that a neo-Nazi and I would possibly agree on the fact that gender identity is a belief not a fact. Frankly I have no interest or desire to understand any neo-Nazi agenda in order for me to make this assumption. I'm going to assume that it's highly likely to be similar to the original Nazi agenda, perhaps with some nuances, perhaps not. For the purposes of my assumption it doesn't matter to me.

Very good point. This is another reason why the clarification of sex as biological sex in the Equality Act is so important.

I'm going to include this example and the discussion that followed it in my letter to my MP about why I think it's important he attends the EA debate on 12th June. I've already written once and had a template reply, so I'm gathering my thoughts on what I'm going to include in my follow-up letter.

Did someone mention the non-existent Trans Agenda?

For your viewing pleasure...

Thanks @BonfireLady

I know that there is possibility to argue that other factors were in play, but we can put the facts so that it is strong and hard to argue - if one brings in more clients, earns lots more commission etc. or had clients taken away suddenly etc. As you say, this happens all the time to females, so it is really important.

Well regarding agendas, until very recently it was my honest belief that the gender critical agenda was to use women’s fear of losing safe spaces to make it socially acceptable to deny trans people their rights, and once that was socially acceptable it would then be easier to gradually erode gay and bisexual rights, and then once that was achieved, women’s rights would be next. This is not an uncommon belief among those who support trans rights. Given that I have heard of some gender critical women voting for conservative parties against their own interests in order to prioritise denying trans people their rights, is it any wonder that this was a reasonable conclusion for me to draw? It’s all too easy to demonise and assume malicious intent of the other side so it might pay to be careful when you’re tempted to assume some big nefarious agenda of those who support trans rights.

Yes, that's a good point, Spooky. And I believe that many if not most people who 'support trans rights' (I also believe that trans people are just as entitled to rights as all other human beings - no more, no less) are motivated by good intentions.

Can confirm that I, like most of the women I know involved in these issues, have absolutely no interest in 'eroding' rights for gay or bisexual people or women. I mean, it would be a bit daft, given so many of us fall into at least two of those categories. And many of us have spent years fighting for exactly those rights.

Can we ask why you believed those specific things?

Who on earth erroneously persuaded you that feminists were determined to remove trans people’s, LGB people’s and women’s rights?

Why would you think that feminists would that?

Spooky there is a difference between the ordinary people who are in the pro-trans movement having some nefarious agenda and the movers and shakers at the top of the moment having a nefarious agenda.
Most who support the TWAW mantra are kind people who genuinely want to be kind to what they regard as vulnerable people I don't think they have a motive other than niceness.
But at the top level that is driving the moves I believe there are shady intentions.
I think mums who take their kids to drag queen story time etc see at as a bit of harmless fun that allows them to show that they are allies to the trans cause, I don't think they have an agenda. But I also think that there is a more sinister motive behind getting 'nice' families to think that.

There's quite a lot to unpick here.

Firstly, isn't women's desire for single sex spaces, whether that be because they have been sexually abused by a male perpetrator, because they need them for religious or cultural reasons, or simply because they don't want to share these spaces with the opposite sex, a good enough reason for us to have them? I don't really understand why we are supposed to immediately and unquestioningly accept a trans woman saying that they don't feel comfortable sharing these spaces with members of their own sex, but it isn't valid or legitimate for women to say they don't want to share these spaces with members of the opposite sex.

Secondly, when you talk about trans rights, what rights specifically are you referring to? Because trans people already have the same rights as everyone else. Being allowed to use single sex spaces intended for members of the opposite sex simply because that is what they want is not a right that anyone else has. I suppose technically removing this right would be rolling back trans people's rights, but our position is that they never should have been granted that right in the first place because women were never consulted and never consented to sharing their single sex spaces with members of the opposite sex.

Thirdly, why would any of this mean that we don't support gay people's rights? The two things are completely unconnected. Indeed, it is those on the "trans rights" side of the argument, yourself included, who don't think we even need words for people who are same sex attracted.

“It’s all too easy to demonise and assume malicious intent of the other side so it might pay to be careful when you’re tempted to assume some big nefarious agenda of those who support trans rights.”

What do you assume is the big nefarious agenda is?