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?

I want to sign up to your manifesto @theilltemperedclavecinist but with a slight adjustment of how we word "I will expect to be able to challenge her beliefs politely and not get disciplined for it."
I expect to be able to make statements about my own beliefs, when in an appropriate context (ie that those beliefs are relevant) and not get disciplined for it. However, I would expect someone who started preaching their religion at work to be disciplined - not for holding their beliefs but for preaching them where they aren't needed. I want Susan to understand that her belief she is a woman is just as worthy of respect as Fatima's belief that There Is No True God But Allah and Muhammed Is His Prophet but that neither of them has any obligation to act as if each other's beliefs are true, so long as they act with respect. I would not dream of challenging Fatima's beliefs though I would have no embarrassment to admit I didn't share them and to share what I do believe if asked. I want Susan's beliefs to have the same status.

So my proposed alternative wording for your manifesto would be

"I will expect it to be widely acknowleded that a spectrum of beliefs on the subject of gender are to be expected and are acceptable, and anyone who shares their beliefs (if asked) should not get disciplined for it, and no one should assume or require a uniformity of beliefs."

Happy for this to be improved upon further.

I think we should bring back the idea that the workplace has its own rules for what is appropriate to wear. There was a thread on here about someone's experience of working with a tw air "hostess" who wore a very sexualised version of what the women wore - and nobody said anything for fear of being transphobic. I don't think it's ever appropriate to expect women to wear heels or make up at work but I think we have gone from this to "absolutely anything goes" far too thoughtlessly.

If someone wants to refer to a bloke in a dress as she/her they can crack on.

What they can't do is make me refer to him in that way and any attempts to do so are doomed to failure.

Yes, conservative dress norms protects vulnerable people as well as oppressing them. I never felt happy about female colleagues showing their cleavage (professional, office type context) but felt bad at myself about it. Now I think maybe I was right.

It's not possible, but there are certain pointers. If a man feels more comfortable presenting in accordance with regressive, feminine stereotypes and chooses to wear clothing like skirts and dresses, I suppose I'd have to support that. To do otherwise is counter to my own ideological position, which is that gender stereotypes are regressive and harmful to both sexes as well as trans people, and that breaking these down can only be a good thing. I can't take such a position and then try to dictate the conditions under which people should or shouldn't be free to choose their own clothing (well I could, but it would indicate a degree of cognitive dissonance).

There are limits to this, and this movement in particular are very good at stampeding over these. Plain, ordinary women's clothes tend to be the preserve of the old-school transexual, although Debbie Hayton presents as such and is a self-confessed AGP. Then there's the parody of womanhood like, for instance, Grayson Perry's 'Claire' (another self-confessed AGP). One is much more noticeable than the other, but both are of the same ilk. IME, though, those who don't want to draw attention to themselves, generally don't.

There are certain men in my working environment who turn up wearing fetish gear. IMO if it's inappropriate for women to wear (cf. the protestation that rape victims were 'asking for it' because of their choice of clothing) then it should also be inappropriate for men who choose to present as feminine.

The above points are moot, however, because in a free society people are at liberty to dress as they choose. And were that to change, you can bet your boots women would be the first ones to suffer. The issue is: where does discrimination against trans people start and end, where does discrimination against women start and end, and where is the crossover between the two? It's in that crossover that women overwhelmingly lose out, and might be entitled to question whether your right to swing your fist ends where my nose starts.

I don't believe people should be discriminated against for how they present. Let them go out in the street like that; unless, for instance, they're masquerarding their packet in tight leggings a la Isla Bryson before an unwilling audience.

But this doesn't make them women, and they have no business whatsoever in women's spaces. GRC or no GRC.

I couldn’t agree with you more. I would never use the words feminine or masculine, because to me they’re just enforcing really old fashioned ideas about clothing, appearance, hobbies, interests etc. I really thought we’d left these ideas behind in the 70s. Even at my very strict convent grammar school in the 60s, we were encouraged to think we could be whatever we wanted from an engineer to a nurse, to an actor. I brought my sons up to wear whatever they liked and play with anything they liked from train sets to Furbies to toy kitchens.

Life for teenage girls these days seems absolutely appalling, with the pressures to look a certain way, do well academically, boys who think choking during sex is normal, worries about drinks being spiked and needle injuries whilst out clubbing, etc etc
Apologies for ranting on, but all this does make me incredibly angry!

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). this is a fantastic summary!

Off to read the thread now

Great idea for a thread @theilltemperedclavecinist .

I'm on the "classically liberal sex realist" side.
What I want:

1. recognition that female biology impacts womens lives in such a way that its needs recognising and prioritising. Periods, pregnancy, childbirth, lactation, menopause are all things women navigate and are impacted by to a greater or lesser extent and its very important to me this is recognised.
2. as much safeguarding as possible whilst prioritising the right "for people to believe, live, and present how they want as long as they don’t harm others or expect the rest of us to join in". In practice that means single sex spaces where necessary for safety and dignity, and no to full self ID. So e.g male voyeurs can't just pop into a woman's changing room at the gym solely on the basis of saying "I'm a woman"
3. single sex data recording (gender could also be recorded separately) so services, crimes etc are accurately representative
4. single sex prisons and sports

What I don't want:

1. Insistence that certain activities or spaces are "men only" or "women only" just because that's what people want.
2. rigid separation of sexes based on stereotypes e.g. clothes, external presentation
3. any law or social contract that compels how individuals refer to themselves or choose to live their lives. I agree with the right for people to believe, live, and present how they want as long as they don’t harm others or expect the rest of us to join in.

Historically gender stereotypes, forced separation of the sexes and laws/strong social contracts have been used to subjugate and control women so for me the risks of the "authoritarian sex-realist" approach outweigh the benefits.

I want men to fuck off out of women's stuff.

I want an answer to the question "Why does the category of woman now include 'non-binary and anyone who identifies as a woman'"?

My previous workplace advertised the Athena Swan women's leadership training programme - not to women but to any human being who identified themselves as a woman i.e. men. Fuck off, fuck off and fuck off again. Get your man hands off our stuff. And while I'm ranting, the idiotic women who support this shit can fuck off too.

Finally, I want an answer to the question - why does sport have to wrestle with the inclusion of transgender and DSD athletes? The science is clear. DSD athletes are overrepresented in elite women's sports suggesting an advantage. Transgender male athletes have no right to inclusion in women sports. Both groups need to leave women's stuff alone.

@CassieMaddox

Insistence that certain activities or spaces are "men only" or "women only" just because that's what people want.

I think that, if a service is being provided that caters for different groups - say, men, women, and mixed, it should be mandatory to make at least one of the groups female-only, if there is demand. Yes, trans should be catered for somehow, but women should not just be faced with 'trans-inclusive or mixed, that's your lot'.

The Tickle v Giggle case made me realise the value in even virtual female-only spaces. They shouldn't be illegal.

I know that the men conspire against us in their men-only clubs, but maybe we can live with it now we have more access to the corridors of power.

Insistence that certain activities or spaces are "men only" or "women only" just because that's what people want.

@CassieMaddox I'd add to the above that this is, perhaps, another instance where the generic "people" we're seeing so much of obscures the fact that men and women may "want" separate activities or spaces for very different reasons - and also the different points at which "want" may actually shade into "need".

The obvious example is safety. I'd be infinitely more likely to join a birdwatching (twitchers'?!) group if - well, firstly if I actually had the remotest interest in this 😀, but also - if it were women only. I'd be very wary of finding myself squashed into a tiny hide in the middle of nowhere with one or several male strangers otherwise. Ditto walking, hiking, wild swimming, lift-shares - as in the case of Sal's Giggle app - ... you name it, really.

That's one of the things that we've already lost (apparently, appallingly, without anyone even thinking, or caring enough, to anticipate the impact on women): how many of us are already self-excluding not just from crisis centres and "inclusive" swimming pools, but also from clubs and meets like this, uncomfortably aware that "women" may now mean "men"? And how many are turning up only to realise they've been lied to, then quietly leaving rather than risk the wrath of a man or have to justify their discomfort.

(Re: another thread, this is what Staffordshire County Council are complicit in when they advertise period products without using the word "woman" - they're normalising the idea that women are no longer a distinct demographic without unique needs - including the need even for a name! - and this makes it easier for this to happen, and harder for women to challenge it).

But safety aside, we all recognise that the dynamic can be different in female-only, male-only and mixed social groups, too, for example.

And I don't think men should necessarily be resented some time away from women, either!

The one counter-argument to this that I've never yet felt confident formulating an answer to is the analogy of a "white-only" social group. This would be utterly anathema to all (I truly hope) but a tiny, racist minority in this country. In this context, I find it hard to put into words why, in contrast, I think men only is potentially OK (eg. as long as it isn't systematically excluding women from corridors of power, business etc., as in eg. the Garrick or the Masons etc.). We could, equally, turn this question around to ask: what the heck took us so long to question the Garrick, given that, in contrast, an (officially, explicitly*) white-only equivalent would have been quite rightly consigned to conscience-stricken history some time (if not nearly long enough) ago. Just a quick google shows a wide range of reputable sources still, effectively, dismissing women's admittance as unnecessary, unreasonable, absurd... And even in typing this hypothetical analogy as part of a rather confused attempt to understand my own views on single-sex groups, I feel as though I'm being in some way inappropriate or potentially offensive (if anyone feels this, I apologise).

*NB. I recognise that the Garrick etc. is still a bastion of white privilege, and that this is maintained in an infinity of complex, problematic other ways...

Special interest things - for me it would be field studies, local history/archaeology, botany - I'd join mixed groups, for maximum chances of having people with expertise and specialist knowledge. There's also a word of mouth factor, so most people would be friends of friends, or at least acquaintances of acquaintances. I would be disconcerted if I found myself the only woman in a group of strangers, but that seems as unlikely thing to happen.

I have sometimes wondered what would happen if a man turned up at craft group - there's no reason sewing knitting crochet etc should be female-only activities, but I suspect our quiet co-operative dynamic might be disrupted in we got one of those chaps who needs to show leadership even in situations where no-one wants or needs to be led. Actually, I can immediately think of a few blokes who have tried that on field studies trips, but the great thing about outdoors is that dissidents wander away and focus on other things.

I enjoy being in mixed groups focussed on a specific purpose, but I definitely don't want men in places where I'll be partially clad or vulnerable, and I think both men and women should be able to opt for single-sex groups if they want to.

I don't think people driven by their own narcissistic neuroses would be an asset to any group activity.

I belong to a women's group. It's not about feeling unsafe. It's just a different dynamic.

Because most users of those spaces believe that transwomen are men, and the state has no power to force them to believe otherwise.

Transwomen ARE men. It is a fact and has nothing to do with the beliefs of a person sharing a space with them.

I think that, if a service is being provided that caters for different groups - say, men, women, and mixed, it should be mandatory to make at least one of the groups female-only, if there is demand. Yes, trans should be catered for somehow, but women should not just be faced with 'trans-inclusive or mixed, that's your lot'.

The way to cater for trans in services where sex may be relevant is to make them explicitly single-sex uni-gender, rather than the current uni-sex single-gender (which translates as 'trans-inclusive or mixed, that's your lot' for women).

I would just want us to be realistic about sex, and get away from awful stereotypes that we fought for so long.

You can never change sex and that is that. Our anatomy, physiology and genetics are different. Cutting bits off will never change the fundamentals.

However, your sex shouldn't define your preferences and lifestyle. Children's toys should be toys, not girl's toys and boy's toys. Same with clothing.

Men and women should be able to be engineers / track workers/ nail technicians / nurses / stay at home parents etc. Your interests are up to you and nothing to do with your sex.

The dividing line comes because in general males are physically stronger than females and are statistically more likely to commit violent crimes so there need to be spaces where women and girls and be safe away from men. This needs to be recognised and respected.

So both men and women can play different sports, but for a fair game the sports need to be separated according to sex. Otherwise women would never win.

The illustration is in women's cycling and swimming; mediocre male-born cyclists or swimmers compete against female-born cyclists or swimmers and start winning. They are no better cyclists or swimmers than they were previously, but their competition is less physically strong.

Yes, there's a difference between single-sex groups that are needed for safety, fairness or decency (physiology) and those that are desired by users because they value the group dynamic (psychology).

The first must be trans-exclusive to fulfil their purpose. The second should have the choice.

(Single-sex social groups have their downsides, including exacerbating the power differential, but that can be guarded against. A white-only group would be different, because there, preserving the power differential is the sole point of the group's existence.)

A white-only group would be different, because there, preserving the power differential is the sole point of the group's existence.)

@theilltemperedclavecinist That’s it! Thank you. So pithily put.

I've been on MN forever, and i feel like we are forgetting the last ten years of discussion here and the last ten years of what has happened in real life.

Comments here seem to believe that we can establish boundaries where men can be treated as if they are women in certain situations, and women and children will not be effected and those boundaries will not be erroded. Its not worked in the last ten years, so what will be different now?

Things that seem like insignificant compromises - like allowing passports to be changed, or preferred pronouns to be used have had an impact on safeguarding. How do employers know the sex of an employee when the id used states a desired sex, not the real one? How do we explain to young children that that man is a man but we call him she out of politeness, but we should treat him as the same risk as any other man, not a woman.

How can we tell children that, no, the feeling they have arent that they are born in the wrong body and they don't need drugs and surgery when we fund men to use drugs and surgery and then call them 'she'?

Calling women who have be thinking about this and seeing the progression of trans ideology authoritarian, while questioning why we shouldnt use preferred pronouns and including some men in womens spaces is naive at best. Its forcing gender on society by stealth.

I've been on here "forever" too. There has always been debate and analysis about feminist views. Even quite (at times) heated disagreement. Indeed it's one of the reasons MN feminism has such a positive reputation.

Women are allowed to debate their opinions and where their views sit, without it meaning they've "forgotten". It could just mean they disagree with some elements or want to discuss the implications of some elements. MN FWR isn't a hive mind with a single approved view.

I think the thread is interesting and useful, clavinist did a great job of framing it.

Calling women who have be thinking about this and seeing the progression of trans ideology authoritarian this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what she outlined in the OP.

There should be a legal directive ie it should be mandatory for single sex spaces in any situations where biology or safety are paramount. Therefore, where there’s shared hospital accommodation, changing rooms, lavatories, sports where biology matters. Very limited exceptions permitted in law eg fine to have single person and enclosed sink facility useable by anyone one at a time; exceptions for genuine situations , where security is increased etc.

No person providing personal services where the customer may be in a state of undress (such as waxing etc) should be required to accept any customer at all; it should be a matter for their complete discretion. Female Prison guards etc not obliged to search persons of the opposite sex.

In an ideal world, I'd also like to go further and mandate only female medical staff and carers for women and children in mental health inpatient facilities- men must be chaperoned by law when attending such patients. Breach would be a criminal offence. This would practically eliminate the rampant sexual abuse of such patients and cut down on all the costs and misery of the claim/ complaint process.

Finally, make safety of women an internal part of the planning process. Councils and builders seeking planning permission must be obliged to consider lighting, avoidance of dark alleyways, security cameras etc.

There should be a legal directive ie it should be mandatory for single sex spaces in any situations where biology or safety are paramount.

Most people agree with this, but some believe that it is possible to change sex, or someone can become close enough to the desired sex that they need to be treated as if they are.

The problem is that once we call men she, given them female id, and treat them as if they are women in some situations, how do we establish when they arent women and how do we police that?

This is complicated. What does "uni gender" mean? And how in practice would you ensure someone who is very very unhappy with being identified as their birth sex had access to the service? Surely this solution is in effect saying "regardless of how you identify you are your birth sex so either use that service or nothing". The consequence of which is trans identified people being excluded.

This is the inverse of the scenario with Edinburgh rape crisis where women are excluded if they are unhappy that the service also includes trans women and therefore a set of women can't get support.

This is part of the reason I'm not as hard line on it. For things like medical treatment, counselling services, sports I can see that exclusion of trans people is necessary and so yes, they have to swallow it.

For social groups and networking type groups, I don't think the case for exclusion stacks up. I'd prefer to say either mixed sex or single gender as that enables trans people to access society in the same way as non-trans people.

How would Single gender services be advertised?