Women's rights general conversations - Thread 5

[Kucinghitam]

Continuation of Thread 4.

There is so much excellent information and so many active discussions on FWR that I wondered if it would be useful to have a thread to sort of "cross-fertilise" between them - airing little thoughts or vignettes that wouldn't themselves merit their own thread, to highlight other posts/threads of particular interest or to point to notable developments on fast-moving threads so that casual observers know where to look.

(For example, "the X thread has meandered onto a fascinating discussion of Y" or "Poster P's amazing analysis on thread Z might have relevance to the scenario in thread W" or "Has anybody noticed this recurring theme that keeps coming up??" or even "Random bloke asked me to smile while I was choosing onions, grr"- that sort of thing).

Absolutely that, Mavis. Why can't Labour be honest with the public? On immigration, on Brexit, etc etc.
In other and less surprising news, my terfy letter was not printed by the NS this week. They'd rather go on about their fuck-witted "Left Power List" (which some readers did rightly criticise this week).

This is an interesting little Twitter thread which I hope encourages us all to Be That Woman who brings things back to reality (and bad male behaviour).

twitter.com/feministbirther/status/1661548329900318721?s=46&t=2gZQHRBGKJX_ibabuqnEUQ

That is indeed encouraging and I hope this increasingly happens elsewhere.

And just down from that, Rianne Vogels in Norway saying the final judgement is now in - she won on all points:

https://twitter.com/Rianne_Vogels/status/1661439646667079683?

The comments on this one are also encouraging:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4813633-to-think-that-i-am-not-being-transphobic

The narcissism of the brother is huge. The OP has to be totally supportive all of the time doing exactly what he wants or she is a transphobe.

My guess is that if we go by the definition of transphobe offered by that sort of person then about 95% of the population, including some transgender people themselves are transphobic because it's all or nothing.

British cycling have finally seen sense, Emily Bridges has launched her toys full on out of the pram.
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4813855-new-british-cycling-trans-policy?reply=126427780

I said ‘about bloody time’ out loud at work on reading the cycling news! And then explained to my colleague (white straight lefty male) that I was glad they had finally ‘got some balls’ .

He didn’t disagree with me but said it was a tricky situation and what about trans men?

Trans men seem much quieter and saner than trans women. Trans men don’t seem to count for much in the trans rights movement. Funny that.

That's because they're women, obv.

Consultation runs until September, so there's time to think about responses. www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4814474-views-sought-on-proposals-to-counter-effects-of-rape-myths-in-sexual-offence-trials-law-commission-consultation

I read this:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/28/why-the-bimbocore-aesthetic-is-the-path-to-weaponising-the-social-performance-of-the-ageing-woman

... and I understood all the words, one at a time. It was when I tried to string them together that I got into trouble. What does it mean, if anything?

"But I have also come to bimbocore with no small amount of jealousy and resentment, because learning the aesthetic exists to satirise the impossibility of meeting contemporary standards of femininity by aggressively performing them makes me desperate to embrace its slutty, pink resistance – and I can’t. "

I think that was written by a Chatbot, an early model. Or possibly by an actual van.

The writer is 48 and contemplating a velour tracksuit... That will not mix well with hot flushes! I'm going for written by an actual van.

A van in velour, now what does that remind me of? Oh, I remember and so appropriate

😂

Bizarre article. Was it about fashion?

This bit made me click on the link as it was so surprising:

Note the recent laws passed in Kansass^ restrict the definition of “female” to those still producing “ova”. If you are an infertile, childfree or menopausal woman, a cultural tradition of being made to feel unwomaned by these experiences is now no longer just a nasty social habit. It’s reality under Kansas law.

The news article linked to has this sentence:

The Kansas law is different than most other states’ laws in that it legally defines male and female based on a person’s reproductive anatomy at birth

I can only assume she was outright lying as if she had evidence for that claim she would have used it.

Tracking down unnamed state legislation isn't easy (at least not for someone unversed in the setup of US politics) but I'm reasonably confident this refers to bill SB180 http://kslegislature.org/li/b2023_24/measures/sb180/

It does define sex as sex at birth, and it does refer to reproductive structures 'developed to produce ova' - but does not say must be actively producing them. I can, if I squint generously, see how a motivated lay reader could misinterpret it. But from a biological point of view it is an entirely reasonable definition (perhaps @Kucinghitam or another ofnour resident biologists would care to give a second opinion?).

Actually the whole bill seems quite reasonable to me - for all the frothing it has generated, if you actually read it all it says is that where services are segregated by sex this means sex at birth; and that any official data collection must include sex at birth.

The link doesn't take me to the bill @BinturongsSmellOfPopcorn but it was a moment's work to find it via the Search box on their website. I had a quick look at the Summary of Legislation and I concur with you - the definition I have C&Ped is below and does not require a female to "still" be producing ova.

• A “female” means an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova;
• A “male” means an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to fertilize the ova of a female

I therefore get the feeling that a bit of, um, pious fraud was perhaps in operation

If I have time later, I might read through the whole bill and perhaps there we will find what the writer claims...

If I have time later, I might read through the whole bill and perhaps there we will find what the writer claims...

Sorry about the broken link - it's not a well designed site, but if you put SB180 into the 'find a bill' search it should take you to the page with the pdfs. I've only read the 'as presented' version because I'm not sure whether the 'amended' ones come before or after presentation. I couldn't see the 'as passed' version. If anyone does find that maybe they could post a link?

It's a very short bill, so any journalist should be able to read it rather than recycling the very biased press release that seems to form the basis of virtually all the reporting.

Ah - I thin 'enrolled' is the final version. It is only 1 page, once you subtract the governors veto letter and the space for signing at the end. So here it is in full.

SENATE BILL No. 180
AN ACT establishing the women's bill of rights; providing a meaning of biological sex for
purposes of statutory construction.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Kansas:
Section 1. (a) Notwithstanding any provision of state law to the
contrary, with respect to the application of an individual's biological sex pursuant to any state law or rules and regulations, the following shall
apply:
(1) An individual's "sex" means such individual's biological sex,
either male or female, at birth;
(2) a "female" is an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova, and a "male" is an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to fertilize the ova of a female;
(3) the terms "woman" and "girl" refer to human females, and the terms "man" and "boy" refer to human males;
(4) the term "mother" means a parent of the female sex, and the term "father" means a parent of the male sex;
(5) with respect to biological sex, the term "equal" does not mean "same" or "identical";
(6) with respect to biological sex, separate accommodations are not inherently unequal; and
(7) an individual born with a medically verifiable diagnosis of
"disorder/differences in sex development" shall be provided legal protections and accommodations afforded under the Americans with disabilities act and applicable Kansas statutes.
(b) Laws and rules and regulations that distinguish between the sexes are subject to intermediate constitutional scrutiny. Intermediate
constitutional scrutiny forbids unfair discrimination against similarly situated male and female individuals but allows the law to distinguish between the sexes where such distinctions are substantially related to
important governmental objectives. Notwithstanding any provision of state law to the contrary, distinctions between the sexes with respect to
athletics, prisons or other detention facilities, domestic violence shelters, rape crisis centers, locker rooms, restrooms and other areas where biology, safety or privacy are implicated that result in separate
accommodations are substantially related to the important governmental
objectives of protecting the health, safety and privacy of individuals in such circumstances.
(c) Any school district, or public school thereof, and any state
agency, department or office or political subdivision that collects vital statistics for the purpose of complying with anti-discrimination laws or for the purpose of gathering accurate public health, crime, economic or
other data shall identify each individual who is part of the collected data set as either male or female at birth.

So the only thing it is actually mandating is sex-segregated data collection.

The provision of services part merely sets out the reasons why it is legal and important to provide sex-segregated provison - it doesn't specify that all provision must be single sex.

It's depressing how inaccurate so many articles are. People trust news sources to summarise reasonably accurately.

Bimbocore: I did not read that.