Post Westminster Hall Debate - what are the next steps to ensure the sex based rights of biological women

[IwantToRetire]

The other thread is now full https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4800027-debate-relating-to-the-definition-of-sex-in-the-equality-act-2010-will-be-in-westminster-hall-on-12-june-2023-430pm

And what it will achieve we will have to wait and see.

But is clarifying the EA the most important campaign to ensure women's sex based rights.

Or ...

What's next? How about parent start to realise that encouraging trans ideology from a very young age and pushing and promoting it (also known as affirming it). I mean what 4 year old/8 year old/12 year old really knows what body they feel like the 'should' have! Tio those that say it doesn't happen then get your head out of the sand and take a look.

Some 'parents' make huge profits by sharing their trans children on Tic Toc - is't all about the money https://twitter.com/OliLondonTV/status/1646961078310453248?lang=en-GB being on trend or whatever. This child apparently 'knew' she was in the wrong body from 4 years old..... there are others and it's very odd.

Munchausen's by trans maybe? Poor child instead of being a child is praise and showered with gifts for showing her 'true inner self' which is a different sex to that which she was born. Imagine when this child grows up...

What is this change in biology and physiology that thousands/millions of us working in fields where biological sex is of significant relevance haven't been brought up to speed in a formal and rigorous way.

Do you honestly argue that biological sex no longer matters for things like your haemoglobin, glomerular filtration rate, growth charts, weight charts, drug dosing etc? I'm currently in the process of supporting a friend being diagnosed with an inherited disorder where the medical professionals are very interested in some family members and not others...based on....(spoiler, it's not gender identity)....

There are thousands of institutions , services and professionals carrying on basing absolutely every single thing they do on biological sex as per the "old" ways and I'm unaware of the plans to ensure all cpd brings everyone up to speed....

The reality that only women can become pregnant and only men can make them so has not changed, even if we understand the underlying mechanisms better.

Please tell me more about this new, improved biology? It sounds interesting. Especially if it's real science.

Another one who wants to know more about this new, improved science. Please do share, @MishyJDI .

Thank you very much Arabella that’s a very helpful list!
MPs really will be grateful for women’s support in the current climate. The push from unsympathetic constituents and colleagues in Parliament and the motivated TRA lobby not to touch women’s rights has been eroding their confidence to come forward on our issues for years. It’s great to show them some appreciation when they’ve spoken up.

Yes very helpful. I wanted to write but that list just made it so much easier, I’ve done a few and will keep going.

I suppose "old biology" is fair enough given that Homo sapiens have been around for a while, reproducing via some means or other which can't have been easy as it's all so confusing which type of human can have babies. Luckily we now have new science to explain it all to us and I am eager to find out more. Extra points if it's that Scientific American opinion piece or clownfish.

It never ceases to amaze me that nutters think MUMSnet, of all places, is the audience to preach to about the unreality of our biology. I mean really, could you find a less likely set of people to convert to this new religion???

That's a good point about "new science"...maybe if we're dumping "old biology", what's meant here is..."new women"..?

It's not just homo sapiens, sexual reproduction in animals has been happening for at least a billion years.

But how Roses? How can those animals possibly be reproducing when it's all so complicated?

Or that sex is a spectrum. That's always good for a laugh.

And why would it be overturned as what she said is exactly what the EA says at the moment thanks to the additions to the EA because of the GRA. By making the exemptions about the few instances when women's biological sex did matter...

You're reading it the wrong way round. There is no hierarchy in legislation other than time. The EA is the latest law so any interpretation of the GRA has to be done with the EA foremost. If there is any conflict in provisions the EA prevails.

And the exemptions can't work to restrict services to biological women, because under Haldane's decision, biological women is not a protected characteristic. A legitimate aim can only be to provide single-sex services, where this means single-legal sex.

Haldane also said GRC-holders may not even have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (!!) so how can the exceptions possibly work?

From here: https://forwomen.scot/02/06/2023/briefing-westminster-debate-on-the-equality-act/

Can you link to some examples showing that the "old biology" has been superseded by new scientific discoveries? (That doesn't include ideological articles arguing that "sex isn't binary" but which cite no new research , btw.) Thanks!

Ah excellent are we getting some real science?

Hope it's not fucking clown fish again, or the appropriation of DSD.

I hope it's correct, and that I haven't missed anyone! Maybe should have checked it against Hansard ...

😁

@MishyJDI

My first degree is a BSc in Human Biological Science. I'm obviously not very up to date with the new biology, so please can you share. I'd love to update my knowledge. Silly old me still following old biology with the 2 sexes in humans. Gosh, please help me out.

This might be relevant.

Thanks for compiling this list. I've just checked with Hansard because I couldn't remember Jackie Doyle Price speaking in this debate. I can't see any mention of her name in the record.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2023-06-12/debates/F74BD8CC-4807-46F4-AA51-5402B7CFE8F9/LegislativeDefinitionOfSex

Also it's Jonathan (not Jonathon) Gullis. (I think it's important to get people's names right if you're writing to them.)

I do wish they'd mix it up a bit. Clownfish are soooo 2015. Why can't we have European pond turtles, jack-in-the-pulpit or platypuses for a change?

Thanks so much - I had the school run! 😁

It's an excuse for this, though:

I’m glad I left out Jackie Doyle Price as I couldn’t recall her speaking so was going to check

I’ve had some really good replies already, importantly that they will continue to push forward on this, against the erosion of women’s rights