Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions
OP posts:
Thread gallery
22
myplace · 27/04/2025 06:58

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 27/04/2025 06:46

I made this point but everyone seemed to think I was overthinking it. I hope this isn't used as a means of attacking the LGB Alliance again.

Surely they share being same sex attracted? It’s not relevant to this that they are also opposite sex attracted.

The women who are invited are same sex attracted, those who aren’t same sex oriented aren’t invited.

Shadowsunray · 27/04/2025 06:59

NotBadConsidering · 27/04/2025 00:05

Your crusade has allowed Falkner to destroy everything that anchored my world

It’s an interesting component of psychology the way there has to be personification of the “destroyer of worlds”, and it’s usually a woman. JK Rowling. Now Falkner.

I also found the "anchored my world" interesting. You can't blame anyone but yourself for destroying a world that isn't anchored in reality. No one has to go along with people's fantasies. The rage we are seeing is because society is no longer bolstering fantasies, it should never have been done in the first place.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 27/04/2025 07:00

myplace · 27/04/2025 06:58

Surely they share being same sex attracted? It’s not relevant to this that they are also opposite sex attracted.

The women who are invited are same sex attracted, those who aren’t same sex oriented aren’t invited.

You'd think so, but in the legislation gay, bi and straight are listed as three separate sexual orientations.

myplace · 27/04/2025 07:10

I would think they are listed separately partly simply because it exists as an orientation, and partly so that bisexual people aren’t force teamed with straight people. ‘You can’t claim that protection because you were married to a man when you were 20. You obviously aren’t a lesbian.’.

Where has this massive outpouring of narcissism come from? Is there something about how we’re raising DC?
My mum’s narcissistic- it took me years to understand her behaviour. But this entire cohort seem to have caught it somehow.

Helleofabore · 27/04/2025 07:39

myplace · 27/04/2025 07:10

I would think they are listed separately partly simply because it exists as an orientation, and partly so that bisexual people aren’t force teamed with straight people. ‘You can’t claim that protection because you were married to a man when you were 20. You obviously aren’t a lesbian.’.

Where has this massive outpouring of narcissism come from? Is there something about how we’re raising DC?
My mum’s narcissistic- it took me years to understand her behaviour. But this entire cohort seem to have caught it somehow.

or is it that such extreme self focus and the empowerment from
society’s attention in overlooking anti-social behaviour fed into a point where the narcissists get endless supply ?

On one hand you have a group of people who say they will accept you unconditionally, and who society lets get away with violence, threats etc. Then because of your lack of ability to moderate your reactions, any slightly negative reaction can be labelled hate. You have a bullies charter where being misgendered is modelled on TikTok with angry or emotional breakdowns. So that is what is replicated.

The very pertinent questions as to why didn’t any of them ever consider women and girls get ignored because I think some of them understand that it is really not a good look to admit they didn’t consider anyone else. So the distraction from that is to broadcast your emotional response.

Hey, society fucking rewarded this group’s extreme influencers with attention. The precedence is there already. The fact that the extreme distress has been caused by the over reach of their supposed support groups is something that cannot be admitted. Instead, redirect it to those horrible people who don’t even express a modicum of the copious amounts of sympathy that the group gives its own.

For people such as Hatched, I don’t think it ever occurred that other people could be prioritised. For someone around when the EA was published, it must have never occurred to them to read it, read Hansard and understand it for themselves. Just as despite us explaining why the deep distress is likely there because such a distortion of the truth will always catch up to material reality.

However, remember this is also a person who prides themselves on being ‘an elder’ in their community and actively advises young people and children.

NebulousCatWhistler · 27/04/2025 07:40

Namechangeforobviousreasons100 · 27/04/2025 02:12

Surely lesbians have the orientation described in paragraph (a) which bisexual women have the orientation described in paragraph (c)?

that’s interesting about the explanatory notes to the Act, did the SC not deal with that in the judgment? You’d think it would be quite an obvious point

These are separate descriptions but not clearly distinct orientations, because sexual orientation is a continuum in a way that sex isn't. People can be more or less attracted to their own sex and the opposite sex; some people only to one sex, some people to both equally, some people to both but to one more than the other. Bisexuality (para c) overlaps with both (a) and (b).

During the AIDS crisis there were services and information specifically targeted at "men who have sex with men", i.e. gay and bisexual men. You could create a group for "women who have sex with women " or "women-attracted women" in the same way. And for lesbians who are only attracted to men. The EQA didn't and doesn't stop that. Groups divided by on sexual orientation might need to set their own exact boundary or might use self-id, depending on their purpose.

It's now clear that a group for bisexual women could use self-id for "bisexual" but not for "women". Women is "biological women".

Does this need to be clarified in the guidance?

myplace · 27/04/2025 07:46

I observed that my grandparents had a strong dynamic of ‘one wears the trousers, the other scuttles around trying not to offend’.
I think DM saw those were the options, and made sure she was the top dog. She goes through life making sure that she’s prioritised. There’s no grey, no sharing. Just graciously allowing the crumbs to fall off the table sometimes.

Maybe these youngsters have a similar experience in the world. ‘Force your worldview on everyone, or be erased’. All about external validation. Nothing about building a successful world for yourself.

LeftieRightsHoarder · 27/04/2025 07:48

My heart is singing, and I want to kiss the people who wrote such clear and untwistable guidance. Of course angry men and transmaids will try to invent problems. But the only real problem is that defending women’s rights enrages misogynists. And that’s not a reason to give in.

Thanks for posting, OP and Empress xx

MissScarletInTheBallroom · 27/04/2025 07:53

NebulousCatWhistler · 27/04/2025 07:40

These are separate descriptions but not clearly distinct orientations, because sexual orientation is a continuum in a way that sex isn't. People can be more or less attracted to their own sex and the opposite sex; some people only to one sex, some people to both equally, some people to both but to one more than the other. Bisexuality (para c) overlaps with both (a) and (b).

During the AIDS crisis there were services and information specifically targeted at "men who have sex with men", i.e. gay and bisexual men. You could create a group for "women who have sex with women " or "women-attracted women" in the same way. And for lesbians who are only attracted to men. The EQA didn't and doesn't stop that. Groups divided by on sexual orientation might need to set their own exact boundary or might use self-id, depending on their purpose.

It's now clear that a group for bisexual women could use self-id for "bisexual" but not for "women". Women is "biological women".

Does this need to be clarified in the guidance?

This makes sense as an argument and I would like to see this clarified in the definitive version of the guidance just to make sure it can't be used as an attack on the LGB Alliance.

I might send some feedback to the EHRC.

EweSurname · 27/04/2025 07:56

I thought this was a useful explainer from Akua Reindorf (although it did not touch of sexuality as a PC)

https://x.com/akuareindorf/status/1916343039699669160/

For those without twitter, it was on PM on bbc 4 yesterday

https://x.com/akuareindorf/status/1916343039699669160

SameyMcNameChange · 27/04/2025 07:57

GarlicSmile · 27/04/2025 02:35

I'm pretty sure you could legitimately have a group for:

a] Same-sex attracted women, including those attracted to both sexes;
b] Women who are exclusively attracted to women;
c] Only women who are attracted to both sexes;

d] Same-sex attracted men, including bisexual men;
e] Exclusively gay men;
f] Only bisexual men;

g] LGB of both sexes;
h] Exclusively same-sex attracted men and women;
i] Exclusively bisexual men and women;

j] Transbians and TW-attracted women, though you couldn't justify this on sex grounds and would have to be prepared for others to apply;
k] Transgay and TM-attracted men, same caveat;
l] All LGBT.

Not terribly restrictive, is it?

(edited to invent 'transgay' although I bet it's already a term)

Edited

I agree.

FlakyCritic · 27/04/2025 07:57

ButterflyHatched · 26/04/2025 19:29

I don't think you quite understand what you are saying here.

I transitioned more than a decade before the Equality Act existed, when trans people did not have legal recognition through the GRA, but were still allowed to use single sex facilities that best suited us.

Even back then at a time of all-consuming culture-wide hostility, the idea of being banned from female facilities was patently ridiculous.

Falkner hasn't just removed my legal recognition with this guidance and rolled us back to before the Equality Act or even the GRA - she has rolled us back to a point so utterly backward; so patently dehumanising and unworkable that it almost beggars belief.

I cried myself to sleep last night - haven't done that for decades - and the tears came right back when I woke up this morning.

Your crusade has allowed Falkner to destroy everything that anchored my world. If I go out in public and use the facilities I have used my entire adult life and much of my teens, I am breaking the law. If I use facilities I am now required to use in the absence of unisex facilities, I automatically breach my right to privacy afforded by the GRA by outing myself. It's unworkable, inhumane and astonishingly irresponsible, not to mention in breach of the ECHR.

Your crusade has destroyed our lives. There are a tiny, tiny number of women in this situation in this country and you have consigned us all to social death. Half my friends are frantically making plans to leave the country; the rest are still in a state of shock. The callousness; the unbelievable cruelty with which our worlds have been torn apart, and the triumphant crowing that has accompanied it, has genuinely shocked me. It is so brazen - so inhuman in its relish at our suffering that it is hard to see it as unintentional. This is a gloating victory lap.

Before you leap in with the accusations of overplaying the impact, please think how you would feel to be told that you must now exclusively use male-only facilities, would be sent to a male prison if you decide to stand your ground and break the law that's just detonated your social existence and right to privacy, and people are cheering and gloating and crying tears of joy, then laughing about how upset it is going to make you.

I transitioned more than a decade before the Equality Act existed, when trans people did not have legal recognition through the GRA, but were still allowed to use single sex facilities that best suited us.

No, you NEVER had the 'right' to use single sex facilities, you just stormed in and assumed it was your right because you wanted it. Before the EA, we could have you charged for Indecent Exposure. If the police were called by us, you would be told to stay out. That is proof you never had the right.

the idea of being banned from female facilities was patently ridiculous.

Only ridiculous to your over-weaning Male Privilege. That males are banned from female only facilities is taken as read and common sense, not 'ridiculous.

Faulkner has rolled back Male Privilege and thuggery and restored female rights.

I cried myself to sleep last night - haven't done that for decades - and the tears came right back when I woke up this morning.
Your crusade has allowed Falkner to destroy everything that anchored my world. If I go out in public and use the facilities I have used my entire adult life and much of my teens, I am breaking the law. If I use facilities I am now required to use in the absence of unisex facilities, I automatically breach my right to privacy afforded by the GRA by outing myself. It's unworkable, inhumane and astonishingly irresponsible, not to mention in breach of the ECHR.

Emotionally manipulative transperbole. So many of us women cry ourself to sleep at you erasing our rights. Do you give a damn?

Your crusade has destroyed our lives. There are a tiny, tiny number of women in this situation in this country and you have consigned us all to social death. Half my friends are frantically making plans to leave the country; the rest are still in a state of shock. The callousness; the unbelievable cruelty with which our worlds have been torn apart, and the triumphant crowing that has accompanied it, has genuinely shocked me. It is so brazen - so inhuman in its relish at our suffering that it is hard to see it as unintentional. This is a gloating victory lap.

No, YOU did this. You destroyed your own life, and your destroyed female lives. The callousness and cruelty you have in inflicting yourself on innocent women and girls shows you care about no one but yourself, just Male Privilege.

Please think how you would feel to be told that you must now exclusively use male-only facilities, would be sent to a male prison if you decide to stand your ground and break the law that's just detonated your social existence and right to privacy, and people are cheering and gloating and crying tears of joy, then laughing about how upset it is going to make you.

The sheer fucking gall of you. How dare you! You were making a male who asked RAPE SURVIVORS if they orgasmed during their rape, into a victim a couple of days ago. You have shown no consideration for how women and girls feel seeing males in our spaces. You have no humanity and no sympathy. Only selfish Male Privilege. You don't stop to even consider how we feel.

Do what that maggot Mridul Wadhwa told women to do: reframe your trauma!

NebulousCatWhistler · 27/04/2025 07:58

Oops typo - "lesbians who are only attracted to women". It would be a very small group of lesbains who are only attracted to men!

NHSisOver · 27/04/2025 08:08

I’ve not commented on trans threads before and wasn’t even aware the Supreme Court ruling was happening (or that we even had a supreme Court!). I don’t particularly care about loos or even changing rooms (with cubicles) but I understand why other women might. I refuse to put my pronouns on my email signature because it seems like woke nonsense has gone too far but I did draw the line at bio men competing against women in sports where that mattered I.e fine in horse riding for example.

But really, @ButterflyHatched you are exemplifying every reason why women have objected to men trampling over our rights for years. Even the ones who think they are quietly living their lives and not imposing on women just don’t get it. You can’t ever get it because you are not a woman.

That doesn’t mean I won’t respect your chosen pronouns and pretend I think you pass as a women if you turn up in a women’s loo but please, at least try and have some reflective insight. It’s really not all about you.

BundleBoogie · 27/04/2025 08:35

FlakyCritic · 27/04/2025 07:57

I transitioned more than a decade before the Equality Act existed, when trans people did not have legal recognition through the GRA, but were still allowed to use single sex facilities that best suited us.

No, you NEVER had the 'right' to use single sex facilities, you just stormed in and assumed it was your right because you wanted it. Before the EA, we could have you charged for Indecent Exposure. If the police were called by us, you would be told to stay out. That is proof you never had the right.

the idea of being banned from female facilities was patently ridiculous.

Only ridiculous to your over-weaning Male Privilege. That males are banned from female only facilities is taken as read and common sense, not 'ridiculous.

Faulkner has rolled back Male Privilege and thuggery and restored female rights.

I cried myself to sleep last night - haven't done that for decades - and the tears came right back when I woke up this morning.
Your crusade has allowed Falkner to destroy everything that anchored my world. If I go out in public and use the facilities I have used my entire adult life and much of my teens, I am breaking the law. If I use facilities I am now required to use in the absence of unisex facilities, I automatically breach my right to privacy afforded by the GRA by outing myself. It's unworkable, inhumane and astonishingly irresponsible, not to mention in breach of the ECHR.

Emotionally manipulative transperbole. So many of us women cry ourself to sleep at you erasing our rights. Do you give a damn?

Your crusade has destroyed our lives. There are a tiny, tiny number of women in this situation in this country and you have consigned us all to social death. Half my friends are frantically making plans to leave the country; the rest are still in a state of shock. The callousness; the unbelievable cruelty with which our worlds have been torn apart, and the triumphant crowing that has accompanied it, has genuinely shocked me. It is so brazen - so inhuman in its relish at our suffering that it is hard to see it as unintentional. This is a gloating victory lap.

No, YOU did this. You destroyed your own life, and your destroyed female lives. The callousness and cruelty you have in inflicting yourself on innocent women and girls shows you care about no one but yourself, just Male Privilege.

Please think how you would feel to be told that you must now exclusively use male-only facilities, would be sent to a male prison if you decide to stand your ground and break the law that's just detonated your social existence and right to privacy, and people are cheering and gloating and crying tears of joy, then laughing about how upset it is going to make you.

The sheer fucking gall of you. How dare you! You were making a male who asked RAPE SURVIVORS if they orgasmed during their rape, into a victim a couple of days ago. You have shown no consideration for how women and girls feel seeing males in our spaces. You have no humanity and no sympathy. Only selfish Male Privilege. You don't stop to even consider how we feel.

Do what that maggot Mridul Wadhwa told women to do: reframe your trauma!

Edited

All of this.

An additional note that using unisex toilets is not ‘outing’ in any way - anyone can use unisex toilets - that is literally the point.

WandaSiri · 27/04/2025 08:35

Namechangeforobviousreasons100 · 27/04/2025 01:44

This only just occurred to me today, in light of the EHRC interim guidance, but is it unlawful to have an association for lesbian and bisexual women, but which excludes straight women? Lesbians and bisexual women don’t share a sexual orientation, so does that mean you can’t rely on the exemption which allows an association to be created for people who share a protected characteristic?

We've been over this and the consensus is that yes you can because they share the PC of SO (same-sex attraction) and of Sex. The guidance says that you can restrict membership of an association to members who share (up to) two PCs. So any straights and any men could be excluded

Sex is a PC. So you can't have a women-only group, which is discrimination against men, unless the SSEs are engaged, ie because you have a good reason to make it single sex. There are different sexual orientations just like there are different sexes.

Floisme · 27/04/2025 08:47

Is this the first time in the history of women's rights that men have been told, 'No'?
If it is, it might explain a few things.

Floisme · 27/04/2025 08:56

Answering my own question (yes I should have googled before posting): No it's not, they were told in 1976 that they couldn't beat their wives and, in 1991 that they couldn't rape them. I guess it's just as well social media wasn't around in those days.

Peregrina · 27/04/2025 08:56

I have just got up and caught up.

Two points from the above - now that driving licences need a photo there is no real reason to say whether someone is M or F - the photo tells you. Transwomen do not pass as women and the photo will usually show that.

About the knitting group - I belong to a similar craft group, which at the moment is all women, but there is nothing to say in our rules that a man can't join. I think if a man who wanted to pursue or learn our craft wanted to join we would accept him. I would suspect that if a TW joined we would quietly melt away and start meeting in smaller groups in each other's houses. Why distinguish? For me, the feeling that I am being parodied by someone, and doubt as to the motives. Are you here to learn the craft or are you here to convince yourself you are a woman?

Stepfordian · 27/04/2025 08:56

Floisme · 27/04/2025 08:47

Is this the first time in the history of women's rights that men have been told, 'No'?
If it is, it might explain a few things.

Good point! When women got the vote it didn’t take away from men, men just didn’t think there was any point as women would just vote as their husbands directed them to. When women got equal pay it didn’t take away from men, if anything men benefitted because household incomes went up. This time men are having something taken away, even though they should never have had it in the first place, the men who are trans can’t go into women only spaces and the men who are not trans now have to share with men they perceive as likely to do something ‘weird’ in the men’s toilets.

Merrymouse · 27/04/2025 08:57

https://a-question-of-consent.net/2020/08/16/croft-v-royal-mail-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place/

From this MF article it does seem that pre GRA there was an idea that a transsexual could acquire rights through surgery. However the ECHR has ruled out applying the law on this basis because you can’t require an operation that leads to sterilisation.

You are stuck with the reality that you can’t change sex, and coercing people into attempting to do so is not humane.

That doesn’t mean that trans people don’t have rights, but that they will always need to be balanced against sex based rights.

Croft v Royal Mail: between a rock and a hard place

They say “hard cases make bad law“. What little case law there is about single sex spaces and transgender people’s access to them falls into that category.  Croft v Royal Mail was an employmen…

https://a-question-of-consent.net/2020/08/16/croft-v-royal-mail-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place/

Needspaceforlego · 27/04/2025 08:59

@ButterflyHatched what would you have done if you had these lady feelings before 1850 and the Ladies Sanitary Association had faught for "water closet accommodation for women"?

Would you have happily used the urinals provided for men or would you have be stuck with the "urinary leash" unable to stray too far from home.

Oh and discrimination against women continued, urinals were free to use, water closets were paid for hence the expression "spend a penny" anyone else remember public loos you had to put a coin in the door to release the latch?

1919 Sex Disqualication (Removal) Act. Illegal to ban people from jobs based on sex. But no requirement to provide ladies toilets!!

I really don't think many Transwomen would really have wanted to be women a hundred or so years ago.

I'm glad that women have got their things back.

Thanks to ALL the women, from FWS to the ladies of the Sanitary Association and the zillions of other women (and occasional man) who's faught for women to have the facilities and rights over the centuries.

Most of this is taken from a BBC Article Jan 2022.

EasternStandard · 27/04/2025 09:00

NotBadConsidering · 27/04/2025 00:05

Your crusade has allowed Falkner to destroy everything that anchored my world

It’s an interesting component of psychology the way there has to be personification of the “destroyer of worlds”, and it’s usually a woman. JK Rowling. Now Falkner.

It’s concerning though. Men can be violent and threatening. Usually online but you’d need to protect offline too.

Peregrina · 27/04/2025 09:02

This time men are having something taken away, even though they should never have had it in the first place,

Some men are having something taken away. My son agrees with my stance but said he has to admit it hasn't affected him directly - he's not been exposed to someone of the opposite sex in a changing room. He hasn't had a sports award taken away from him.

He and DIL are very worried about what the children will be taught in school though.

ArabellaScott · 27/04/2025 09:06

Stepfordian · 27/04/2025 08:56

Good point! When women got the vote it didn’t take away from men, men just didn’t think there was any point as women would just vote as their husbands directed them to. When women got equal pay it didn’t take away from men, if anything men benefitted because household incomes went up. This time men are having something taken away, even though they should never have had it in the first place, the men who are trans can’t go into women only spaces and the men who are not trans now have to share with men they perceive as likely to do something ‘weird’ in the men’s toilets.

Arguably, men lost the right to single sex spaces early on. The first principle of the EA means that all men spaces like clubs etc had to admit women unless they could prove the proportionate/legitimate.

It's an arguable point-.women have been historically excluded from power broking because of 'men only' rules. However, I do also think men need and deserve single sex spaces in many cases - mens sheds etc.

Some men see it as their inalienable right to do whatever the fuck they please to women, also, though. That's probably a bigger problem. They're outraged at being forced to accept women as human beings.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread