What do we want, do we really, really want??

[theilltemperedclavecinist]

Habitués of this board will know that, from time to time, a proxy war breaks out between classically liberal sex-realists (gender ideology is a belief, believers should not be discriminated against, and non-believers should not be forced to participate), and authoritarian sex-realists (sex-realism should be enforced by law and by custom, in some way).

(I am not talking about the few states that have outlawed 'transitioning', or religions that believe it is against God's will, or populists who whip up the mob against visible minorities, representing them as pandered to by a woke elite. I'm talking about activists who object to gender ideology but differ as to whether it can be eradicated altogether or must be accommodated in some way.)

(Also, my question does not depend on whether activists on either side are gender critical in the sense of being sceptical about imposed cultural sex norms.)

So, here is my question: not 'who is right?', but 'what do the two factions want?'

Here are some things which the authoritarian faction appear to want but which I don't:

'We should be allowed to discriminate against trans people.' (Just, no.)

'A sex-realist who publishes a photograph of herself sitting with a transwoman is a traitor.' (Not really in the ecumenical spirit, is it?)

'Men should not be allowed to wear, even sober and respectable, women's garb, because it mocks women.' (I agree, but don't think it's the state's job to protect me from mockery.) 'And, in up to 73% of cases, they're getting a sexual thrill from it.' (I agree, but don't think what's inside people's heads is the state's concern.)

'No-one should use cross-sex pronouns, ever.' (Freedom of speech means I can if I want to.)

'The NHS should not pay for drugs or surgery.' (On the fence: should depend on therapeutic utility. )

Here are some things, very briefly, that I do want:

Data that's both correct and useful.

Freedom of speech.

Children kept out of it.

Women to keep all concessions based on their physical differences from men.

If I could have all of my wishes, then I could tolerate working with my soberly garbed male transexual colleague 'Susan' and I'm even going to use 'her' pronouns if I want to. I will expect to be able to challenge her beliefs politely and not get disciplined for it. Her beliefs will now be in the same category as those of my (real!) colleague (who, despite having a science degree, thinks the earth is six thousand years old), rather than being state-sanctioned and prioritised over other beliefs.

So, dear Mumsnetters, I know you will tell me I'm wrong, and why. But first, please tell me what you want. What is on your wishlist?

Lily Savage used to be a character and isn't any more, I refer to boats, ships, and other inanimate objects as 'it', and have come to the conclusion that any post that includes the terms 'sex realist' or 'ultra' is probably not going to be worth reading.

It's true that excluding transwomen from women-only spaces has been treated, in practice, as illegal discrimination based on the protected characteristic of either legal sex or gender reassignment (whether there is a GRC or not).

For the avoidance of doubt, I think that this form of discrimination should be legal, to serve the legitimate and proportionate aim of retaining single-sex spaces for women. Because most users of those spaces believe that transwomen are men, and the state has no power to force them to believe otherwise.

This already is legal. It is covered by the single sex exemptions in the EA.

There are many, many threads about this, and a recent set of guidelines about to advertise this from the EHRC.

If you have somehow understood this isn't possible, this is just an example of how wide spread the misinterpretation of actual law by trans activists is.

And unfortunately too many in positions of power who could have put a stop to this misinterpretations years ago.

So dont worry your wish to discriminate is already here. You just need to assert it!

Ok. I understand that feeling.

I think though that if you were to use these opposite sex pronouns, you would need to understand why you did it and be honest with yourself about why.

And as I say, understand any ramifications of doing so.

It has taken a long while for me to get over the need to please people, so for me, I would be looking whether I was doing it to keep someone happy. And if I was, I would feel manipulated, whether intentional or not. I would have to really evaluate how to deal with it in the future.

I would agree with you on the use of the term ‘ultra’. It was a derogative and divisive term.

As with my comment above about misinformation being spread as though true the issue of clothes is just another example of how backward sliding society have come.

Back in the 70s/80s what were called "gender benders" were all about breaking down the artificial stereotypes of male / female clothing was breaking down. And celebrated in the media.

But as with women's liberation itself, women changed and stayed changed(*). But men of course didn't. And then the male backlash against women of the MRAs is the foundation stone on which TRAs are now able to grow more powerful because they provide a "valid" basis for men as a whole to discriminate against the sex class of women.

(*) a trivial example of this is that the trouser suit became accepted if not standard for women working in offices etc.. But no such breaking down of rigid male clothing.

So of course, it being about men, they had to create a whole special reason for what had started to be a breakdown of sex stereotypes, they had to have a very special reason to want to wear what is thought to be a feminine style of clothing. ie the poor male brain cant cope with thinking differently so they continue the stereotype rules that if they want to wear a dress it much be because they are a woman.

I would like to see sex-based rights upheld. No ifs, buts, whataboutery, misuse of language. Which also means that I want an end to any concept of 'legal sex', self ID, backdated changes to ID documents etc. From that eveything else would flow.

Yes exactly, it's the only way to untangle the whole mess.

I’ve not had time to read all of this thread, but will try to tomorrow as it looks interesting.

For now, I’d like to say thanks to @ReadWithScepticism for their post at 1647.

As the person who started the thread cited just before Read’s post, I’d like to highlight that my reason for starting that thread was precisely because I support the approach the author, and this thread, describe as “liberal”, however also feel uncomfortable with those who have concerns about that being characterised as straightforwardly “illiberal” or “authoritarian”. I felt this small part of the original essay was reductive and divisive, sometimes naively (and sometimes cynically) misrepresenting the position in question. The thread was an attempt to work out why I felt that way.

At least as far as Read’s post above, I feel that parts of this thread risk similarly misunderstanding/misrepresenting (what I, at least, understand to be many of) those individuals’ perspective. Read explains this really well.

I think the vast majority of posters here are, like me, in support of the “liberal” approach - but may also perhaps (I’m still working out my views on this!) feel that those who are rather more cautious/cynical/angry/wary etc. deserve more than to be called “illiberal” or “authoritarian” without some very careful thought: some absolutely will be, of course - but there’s also scope for more nuance.

As some people are very fond of saying - in this case it really is true that…

(Gender critical thinking) is not a binary!

It may even be a spectrum!

(But it doesn’t have clownfish. ☹️)

This is how I think about it too, I think.

What people do on their own time, if it's not inappropriate/indecent in itself, is up to them. I may approve or not.

I think work is more complicated. I don't necessarily think that uniforms that have conventional male and female forms constitute meaningful discrimination, and not allowing men to wear the woman's version doesn't either. So I tend to think on balance a workplace can refuse to allow a maleemployee to wear a dress or skirt etc. A male person wanting a particular job then will have to decide if he's really unwilling to wear "man" clothes to the degree he won't take the position.

I think the deeper element is, if there are no man or women clothes innately, there should be no serious reason for him to shy away from conventionally male clothing - it's just personal preference and work clothing isn't about personal preference.

As far as what I would like - I would like some kind of real scientific evidence based approach to the whole thing. I actually think that would take care of a heck of a lot of the other issues. Including pronouns.

It would pretty much blow the whole approach to trans issues out of the water though. None of the kids stuff would be considered within that framework, the AGP stuff would be pushed back into the private and a little unsavoury, drag would go back to being a mainly camp gay pass time, cross sex acting and performances would be just acting and performances, and I think we'd see a lot of the heat taken out of the odd adult male homosexual with issues around sex presentation, because the stakes wouldn't be particularly high and it would be very uncommon.

I mean - Lily Savage isn't really the same thing, that's referring to an essentially pretend person. Like Ziggy Stardust.

My "one thing" would be related to official documents, like birth certificates, passports, driving license, school records, medical records, etc. They should always, 100% of the time, reflect the person's biological reality. There should be absolutely no procedure to change these records unless there was an actual made error in the original. Off topic, but I don't even think birth certificates should be altered to add adoptive parents and remove biological parents. They definitely shouldn't be altered to change the person's sex.

My "one thing" would be related to official documents, like birth certificates, passports, driving license, school records, medical records, etc. They should always, 100% of the time, reflect the person's biological reality. There should be absolutely no procedure to change these records unless there was an actual made error in the original.

Agree with this. Why should anyone have the right to falsify legal documents?

I would like to see stereotyping challenged more. I hate the enforced feminisation of girlhood/womanhood (and ditto masculinisation for boys/men because toxic masculinity is a real worry) and think it puts women’s rights backwards just as we appeared to make progress. I dislike the way that transgenderism and nonbinarism appear to push us all towards femininity and masculinity rather than recognising we all have unique personalities and don’t necessarily identify with the stereotypes enforced by others on our sex class.

I feel less strongly about passports and driving licences, but agree 100% about birth certificates and medical records.

Agree with this also

We need to be honest about the messaging here. Children are being told there is a 'right' way to be male or female and they are doing it 'wrong'.

This is unconscionable

Using the language of grammar about humans (gender, feminine, masculine) is divisive - it is meant to be. So is using up makey-up terms like 'ultra' and 'sex realist' that can be defined any way a person attempting to forced-team or impose stereotypes wants, because they are novelty terms and don't have any established and agreed meaning.

(by the way, why 'sex' realist as opposed to realist? wtf is it meant to mean?)

I'm prepared to discuss actual things that are happening or have happened any time, but I refuse to get suckered into anyone's divide and rule word games. Divide and rule was a technique much used by imperial administrators in both Britain and America.

Who decided to apply it as a weapon against women?

This was exactly my position. Plus, it made me wonder, if these illiberal types really exist (either irl or in the heads of their critics), what do they want that we don't all want?

your last paragraph is interesting. (and I'm working this out as I type, sorry)

There are man and woman clothes, in that men and women have different shaped bodies, so shirts and trousers for example are cut differently. The most obvious example of course being a bra - an item that most women feel much more comfortable wearing and no man with a healthy body requires.

There are also clothes that we currently code masculine or feminine, and that coding changes over time. I am quite a lazy person and generally happy to conform in many areas for an easy life. I present in a fairly feminine way as part of that conforming. BUT, if for my easy life I had to dress exclusively in black, brown or grey, minimal jewellery, discreet or no makeup, I would be miserable (and very bored). I LIKE jewellery, make up, bright colours, interesting clothes and shoes, soft, sheer and patterned fabrics, things that are currently coded as feminine.

if by some (very weird) twist of fate I had to dress as a 17th century french noble man to conform I think that would suit me just fine. I'm not sure it's the coding that attracts me I think it's the items themselves. but maybe I'm just making the same excuse auto gynephile men make!

the point I'm trying to get to is maybe some men just LIKE to look in a way that is currently coded as feminine, and I don't think that will ever change.

Yes! I have a scientific background and very frustrated that no-one is really allowed to interrogate this very interesting phenomenon scientifically.

I think there could be practical uses (eg strip searches/medical emergencies) for a 'trans' marker on ID as well as a sex marker, particularly if someone passes well. They'd probably feel it to be stigmatising, though. And purists would feel it reifies trans as a real thing.

@BernardBlacksMolluscs, love the French nobleman comment. For the surreal image, but also… If we could all be magicked, by that weird twist of fate, right back then with you (and, with another weird twist of fate, have the freedom to choose…) then wouldn’t it be fascinating to see who among us would choose which clothes, which mannerisms… and, to make that choice, accept the associated restrictions imposed on those with a “female” gender then. I could see there being a lot more transmen. I’m not so sure how transwomen may respond. How many would, tragically, choose to live in the metaphorical closet to retain male privilege? And who would perhaps, rather, review what they’d previously perceived as an innate truth to come to a genuinely different conclusion? And which would each scenario mean about what gender actually could be? So many different demographics, with different needs, make up the group now called transgender… A fascinating, if utterly weird and unwieldy (and yes, totally logically flawed in half a dozen ways) I know - thought experiment!

It really is very simple.

Repeal the GRA so that no more lies are allowed in life and law.

Third attempt!

That’s, incidentally, something else I find fascinating about traditional constructs of gender. They’re often highly “classist”. The vast, vast majority of women in 17th century France wouldn’t be prancing around in cinched waists - they’d be muscly, filthy, and hard as nails.