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 haven't been on MN for that long, but was on another platform where the same issues were discussed until the owner decided we were evil and that the whole place would be closed down unless we left, so we did, and some of us came here (some were already members in good standing). For some reason at least one of the people who stayed in the old place still refuses to accept that we were expelled. The comfortable lies people tell themselves are a bit sad to witness.

Anyhow, I've been a feminist since my early teens, women are women and have female bodies, men are men and have male bodies, anyone can wear whatever they want, it doesn't change their sex and if it shows them up as fetishists so be it, I remember PIE and page 3 and a lot of creeps, I remember legal discrimination on pay and rights, I was always a Union member and often a branch activist, some of the stuff that Germaine Greer wrote that seemed exaggerated when I read it ca 1974 now seems horribly true and still unchallenged.

And I remember how we laughed when a few prissy individuals started to use the word 'gender' as though it was a synonym for sex, some time in the 1980s. How weird they seemed (both of them, only two women, the first time I heard a man suggest doing this - on a form he was drawing up - was in 2003).

Gender is and always has been a nonsense word in the context of human behavior and should be retired.

Like now. Just make it clear if woman includes or excludes trans women, exclusion of transwomen needs to be necessary and proportionate.

This is why the essay is good. This bit is about equality, not belief.

This is my opinion and I don't really want to get into a fight about it so may not answer further questions.

Thank you to everyone for responding. I'll try to summarise:

One. Most people want the same things - data integrity, freedom of speech, no miseducation or medicalisation of children, restoration of genuine single-sex spaces.

Two. Some are particularly concerned about public erotic cross-dressing. This presents a problem because banning it would be authoritarian and would be an instance of enforced cultural sex norms. We could argue that it causes harm, so banning it would not be classically illiberal. But given the practical difficulties, I think we would get much forwarder by campaigning more generally for modest dress in formal settings.

(It could also be much mitigated by being mocked, satirised, and called out publicly for its true motivation. More on that below.)

Three. Religion. This is where I can detect a true divide, between people who see GI as a minority religion, whose practice can be tolerated in a pluralistic society, and people who wish to stop any such practice whatsoever, because it's untrue and/or because the harm caused is always intolerable.

I'm in the first camp, not because I'm anti-authoritarian (I'm fine with speed limits, for instance), but on pragmatic grounds. Trans and allies will not stop believing, any more than Catholics have stopped believing in transsubstantiation in the last two millennia.

But it seems to me that the harms are coming, not from the mere existence of the religion, but from the fact that it has become our state religion. People are punished for denying its tenets, for refusing to follow its rules, for mocking, satirising, or criticising it, and for subjecting it to scientific scrutiny. This needs to stop. But we don't need state-enforced non-belief either.

If women want to excluse men just for shits and giggles, that's their right to do so. One man impacts all the women in the group. They shouldn't have to write an explanation of why and refer to laws to just stay a woman only group.

I think we would get much forwarder by campaigning more generally for modest dress in formal settings.
I think "modest" is risky. Because historically modesty has different connotations for men than women and policing womens clothing is a serious problem (the most egregious example being the burka).

I think more that orgs should have a workwear policy that all have to comply with. Modesty shouldn't come into it.

But it seems to me that the harms are coming, not from the mere existence of the religion, but from the fact that it has become our state religion. People are punished for denying its tenets, for refusing to follow its rules, for mocking, satirising, or criticising it, and for subjecting it to scientific scrutiny. This needs to stop.
This is so true

So many thoughtful, useful comments on here. Many different viewpoints being intelligibly expressed, and debated, as they should be.

Repealing the GRA is essential, in my view, because no law should enshrine a lie. Anything stemming from that fundamental lie is deliberately dishonest and therefore unsound.

When I say single sex, I mean it. Birth sex. It would be a criminal offence to access a single sex space if not belonging to that sex, regardless of ‘sex change’.

it’s about respecting everyone’s beliefs and safety. It would be essential to have single use facilities too to accommodate gender questioning people.

I don’t believe in exclusion except in the circumstances I mentioned where biological differences are facts and influence the safety privacy and dignity of women and children. So fair enough to stick to existing presumption in favour of inclusion in other situations.

Any society that valued women would understand all of this easily. Why it’s acceptable to continue as we are- for example, with rapes and sexual assault happening daily in our schools and hospitals is beyond me. It’s not beyond the wit of ‘man’ to put safety measures in place. There’s just no will to do so.

Strict segregation of sexes historically and in countries where its still practised now, has not been positive for women.
I think its more complicated than you portray.

the harms are coming, not from the mere existence of the religion, but from the fact that it has become our state religion. People are punished for denying its tenets, for refusing to follow its rules, for mocking, satirising, or criticising it, and for subjecting it to scientific scrutiny. This needs to stop. But we don't need state-enforced non-belief either.

Absolutely. It should be like belief in fairies, flying saucers etc. Fine if that’s your thing, you have the right to believe what you like. But don’t expect anyone else to agree or even to pretend they respect your views.

Nonsense. We had strict segregation in prisons, single sex wards etc in the past and, for the most part, in public toilets due to a social contract that’s now broken.

I’m not talking about total sex segregation for all purposes as in Afghanistan for example!

I suspect those trying to complicate this. I believe it’s very simple. Exclusion of all males from places where women are in a state of undress or otherwise vulnerable and you will reduce substantially the opportunity for violence and sexual harassment.

I want children not to be exposed to gender ideology by activists at school or when seeking health provision - physical or mental.

Other beliefs are not permitted to be pushed onto children in health or education settings by teachers, so I have no idea why this one belief is.

I don't think it's possible to do much if parents believe in gender ideology and push it onto their children, but I think it's made worse if health/education also affirm this position.

For adults and children I want freedom of belief, where that belief is allowed to be openly (but politely) stated and people can not be forced into compelled speech in court, in school or in work.

I want protection of all same sex spaces that have previously been provided because the need was clearly understood to exist for fairness, safety, dignity or health provision.

I want gender stereotypes to get in the bin where they belong.

I realise I am very late to this conversation and have not read the full thread.

Having read backwards, I agree with most of the summary although I'm not a big fan of 'modest dress'.

@SerafinasGoose "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."
I don't think it's as clean cut as that.
There was a man in London (don't know if he's still around) who spent years being remanded in custody and released until he stripped off butt naked around the corner, was arrested and again remanded in custody.
And on the other point, if society were to become more libertine it would also be women who are the first to suffer. I'm very glad male people aren't allowed to strip naked in public, I know exactly what many blokes would do with that liberty. I feel exactly the same way about male people in closely tailored, calf length pencil skirts. Yes, some men will just feel happier naked / wearing the pencil skirt. Other men will enjoy being close to women while displaying their semi, getting even more enjoyment from the fact that she'll be considered an out of touch prude who isn't up with mod mores if she expresses her discomfort and distress.

Thing is, it's a zero sum game ultimately.

Female only spaces, for instance in schools and colleges (and in convents) have often been very positive for women, giving them a chance to grow and expand and flourish in a way that they couldn't in a mixed-sex environment.

I see women's rights as a work constantly in progress. It's not a case of, fix it once and it stays fixed. So we have to be able always to campaign based on facts and not fiction, and without pandering.

The idea that there can be three spaces - single sex, single gender and all, is an example of a compromise that doesnt make sense unless we all believe in gender ideology.

To need and provide services where men with gender are treated as if they are not men, but women, means we need see these men as meaningful different to other men and significantly similar to women.

Is gender dysphoria enough? Or too much of a bar.

For anyone who does not believe in gender ideology, single gender is mixed sex, but we are forced to pretend it isn't to spare mens feelings, or is forcing everyone to believe they have a gender in common.

This isn't letting people believe what they want, it's forcing gender ideology onto the population.

From time to time I have heard the claim that there are dozens, hundreds, thousands, limitless numbers of genders, and that people can change their genders at will, which might make 1:1 lavatory provision a bit costly.

People trying to make accommodation for people with gender, assume gender ideology is definable and consistant.

It isnt. So any compromise made will be challenged and boundaries eroded.

It's similar to 'queer' - some work under the assumption that it means not heterosexual, but anyone is allowed and encouraged to identify as queer. Trans is an umbrella term that means anything anyone wants it to mean, thats why government want self id, so they dont have to define it.

Interesting that you think saying no to men wearing skirts is far 'too authoritarian' yet girls are going to school; having to wear skirts. Women covered from head to toe for their religion and women are going to work today wearing lipstick and tights in the exact shade their employer dictates.

Men should respect women's boundaries, customs and traditions.

Men in skirts makes me less safe, similar to pronouns - it's disrupting my intuition and instinct - making me do more work - having to think more about reading situations - e.g. the silhouette of a person following me in a dark street, if they are wearing a skirt I usually feel safe.

Is there any other way to address it? Maybe to foster a culture where men in dresses are seen not as women but as a particular sort of man.
No, actually women are far too busy fighting for our rights now to do any 'fostering of cultures' for men!

Well, we can't stop him from wearing a dress, but we can refuse to believe he's a woman. We can ban sexualised public displays. And we should all mock, satirise, and criticise public erotic cross-dressers. But as things stand, we would be punished for that.

There is some debate upthread about dress codes. Do you believe institutions should have different dress codes for men and women?

Arms covered to the elbow, legs covered to below the knee, no low necklines, no trailing or loose fabric that could snag or catch, closed shoes to protect the feet.

For everyone.