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?

Oh and clean, and no political or offensive statements or slogans on or attached to clothing.

Where I grew up men did wear long shorts, with long socks below the knees and with tailored short sleeve shirts to work. I think that equitable solutions for work attire can be developed. I think trying to push everything into 'equality' doesn't work.

Men and women’s dress codes are interesting. Women tend to have a lot more leeway in the office. I don’t usual cover shoulders as I would feel very claustrophobic and overly hot. I am also usually bare legged, though with a skirt at knee length.
I look respectable and modest in that environment, where a man would look too casual in shorts.

I wouldn’t like to live in a society where any dress codes were enforced (looking at you, Afghanistan) particularly where it is based on sex.
We need a new social contract, or to go back to the old one, where a man in a dress would not necessarily be openly mocked, but people would not be afraid to look twice and raise an eyebrow, or perhaps even tut under their breath and wonder when the circus came to town.
However, a man parading around in public in women’s underwear, fetish gear or sexualised children’s clothing should be openly challenged and judged.
We need society to develop more of a sense of personal shame and less on celebrating being your authentic self.

My proposed dress code (admittedly I was thinking in terms of the workplace) would prevent anyone from parading around in underwear. Unless it was knee and elbow length, I clearly need some kind of deeply oppressive code about acceptable fabrics, I have probably mentioned before, the time I met a local cross dresser strolling through town clothed below the waist in a pair of those tights that have a white bit at the top as a kind of knickers substitute. I can only hope the long suffering women at one of the local charity shops managed to get a skirt on him before he scared any horses.

I know this would force @SensibleSigma into longer sleeves than she likes, but it's amazing what you can get used to.

btw, local cross dresser has been back in 'men's clothes' since his last court appearance for menacing a young female shop assistant who wasn't prepared to give him a bottle of alcohol on tick. Conventional society is so oppressive.

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)

Can you give me a specific example (even if hypothetical) of a measure that an authoritarian sex realist wants to enforce? What do you mean by enforcing sex realism, basically?

That was the question I was hoping to get an answer to. In fact most people turned out to want much the same things, but some were more vehement than others about public erotic cross-dressing, and about the ideology being a big fat lie. Others were pessimistic about being able to micromanage how people present themselves, and about the prospects for eradicating the belief system, even though it's crazy. I'd settle for it no longer being endorsed and enforced by the state.

Measures I can think of that we probably won't get: repeal the GRA and delete the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, make it illegal to alter the sex marker on your ID, include the immutability of sex in the national curriculum, ban public cross-dressing, ban surgery and cross-sex hormones on the NHS.

I have so many questions but I'm on my phone.

Actually you’re right about passports etc. I said upthread I wasn’t so fussed about passports and driving licences (but would not want birth certificates changed). I was thinking of them as “travel” documents (& actually don’t see value in a sex/gender marker on a travel document) but you’re right they get used as ID documents and that creates other problems.

Measures I can think of that we probably won't get: repeal the GRA and delete the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, make it illegal to alter the sex marker on your ID, include the immutability of sex in the national curriculum, ban public cross-dressing, ban surgery and cross-sex hormones on the NHS.

The problem is that if we want, and the government allow, women only spaces and opportunities, service providers need to be able to differentiate between women and men with gender.

The government by allowing men to hide their sex by changing official documents and paying for surgeries and drugs to change their appearance, are making it very difficult to provide women only services.

If we have no hope to repeal the GRA for the benefit of womens spaces, what are we planning to do instead? Are we happy to have women only spaces in theory only?

If we have no hope to repeal the GRA for the benefit of womens spaces, what are we planning to do instead? Are we happy to have women only spaces in theory only?

At last a post from someone living in the real world. This thread seem to have spun off into some sort of life style options discussion.

What is happening is because women as a sex class are opprressed by the male sex class.

And any thought that the 20th century may have made opportunities and treatment of women a bit more equal, have been totally undermined by the impact of the GRA on the EA.

ie So whimsical notions about some superficial presentations just seem like fiddling while Rome burns, or what ever contemporary saying there is.

Irrespective of party loyalites, within the first few weeks of Labour being in power we have lost any political voice (even if it was only Kemi Badenoch) pointing out Government decision that are effectively saying women dont have the right to determine their future.

The Women and Equalities Committee will now be chaired by a Labour MP who thinks TWAW, and the Women's Minster has announced there is no need to amend the EA.

I think we should be having a more fundamental discussion about how easy it is, within a matter of weeks, that women in the UK are basically being told by "our" Government that they dont believe in women's sex based rights, or the need to be gender critical.

When and if, which now probably wont be in my life time, we retrieve our basic equality based on the reality of being part of an oppressed sex class, there might be some point in discussing the window dressing.

Now we dont even have a window, let alone a space to fit a window.

Yes. Also it's not clear what they plan to do with those educational guidelines and the freedom of speech legislation, although Streeting is at least holding firm on Cass. It's looking grim.

But it's still the case that men, even men with GRCs, can be excluded from women-only spaces for good reason, it just isn't happening, because Stonelaw.

There are several relevant cases ongoing (David Lloyd, Survivors' Network, NHS nurses). And public attitudes seem to be shifting.

Darkest hour before the dawn, and all that?

Also depressed to be proved right about Labour. Why can't they surprise us for once?

If we can establish case law that says women must be granted trans-exclusive spaces to avoid sex/religious discrimination, institutions will have to make it happen. It will be their problem not ours.

The whole point of a GRC is that the persons sex is hiden, and only known in exceptional circumstances. The system is designed that way, so how would it be possible to exclude the men in most situations?

But it isnt just GRC holders, men can obtain female passports. And it will be passports or driving licences that men with or without a GRC will use as id. Its photo id thats needed, not birth certificates or GRC.

Stonewall have promoted Trans and the idea that men with or without a GRC are allowed in womens spaces, but the government havent emphatically said it isnt so, or made it easy to exclude all men.

The problem is that there is no id that i have as a women, that a man cannot have.

We used to have single-sex spaces that didn't require the production of a birth certificate or a genital inspection, and that's what we want to go back to. A world in which an obvious male cannot claim admission whether they have a GRC or not. Passing trans, if they really exist, have always been sneaking in, so no change there. And in sex-critical situations (eg sports or medical) their sex will be known or actively tested for.

That's the media and stonewall simultaneously having to teaching us about trans ideology and telling us to ignore the men in womens toilets because they've always been there and if we now notice or object, we are biggots. And at no time has any politician said that that is a lie.

Its like when eddie izzard appears on loose women or something and they have to pretend that its both a big deal and worthy of a fanfare and something that half the population has always done. Its all bonkers.

Schrodingers trans

I want lesbians being able to say no to having sex with a man without being called a transphobe.