A space for respectful dialogue about sex, gender and diversity

[Tandora]

This is a thread for posters who want to talk and share a diverse range of opinions about sex, gender, being gender non-conforming and/or trans, and public policy. It is to learn from each other; to engage in a productive exchange, and to hear different sides of the story.

It is not a space for bullying and insults. Please do not join if your intention is to control the conversation and undermine those who disagree with you.

I agree, @Easytoconfuse. If these people were really so secure in their identity, it wouldn't matter if no-one else ‘affirmed’ them. When Eddie Izzard said “These aren’t women’s clothes - they are my clothes” I thought he had got it - and then he decided he is actually a woman, and his feeling matter far more than the fear he caused three teenage girls in the Ladies loos.

Do you not see a difference between things that are government mandated (e.g. every business must have x number of toilets for men and women and these must be divided by sex, and a group of people organising a book club or hair care session?

I'm really not tolerant at all - I would never organise a book club for people who "identify as" women, and I support any grassroots campaigns to encourage support groups etc to be on the basis of sex and not gender. I just don't think they should be illegal.

Unfortunately there is a nasty set of men who think it should be illegal for women to have any single sex groups, @OneAmberFinch. Strangely they don’t seem to get worked up over single sex groups for men - funny, that.

If a book club had less than 25 members it won't be subject to the Equality Act so it could be for anyone who identifies as...

I wish it wasn't necessary. But if men will not tolerate women having groups set up for women then what alternative is there? Small clubs, small lesbian groups - do you remember the women who tried to meet in one of their own houses to escape two aggressive men and ended up with the men arguing with police on their driveway that the police should force the men's right of entry to the house?

We're not dealing with well balanced, reasonable activists in this.

Some of this is so that small groups of women can clearly say no to men, and not be threatened with legal consequences. As they have been. The balance of law has just been restored; supposed interpretation of the law has been used to beat women over groups like this for years.

I don't know if anyone else has answered this, but for me, hygiene. Different risks of and locations for drips, drying invisibly for me to dip my trousers in, in a way males typically don't need to. I'm always conscious of this in a mixed sex toiler in a way I don't really need to be in a women's. Also, honestly, for women with trauma, the knowledge that they may open the door to a small, enclosed, lockable space to be confronted face-to-face (not standing outside next-door, or passing by, but virtually nose-to-nose) with a waiting male - genuinely difficult or impossible for some to contemplate and endure.

My problem with Tandora is that she mostly refuses to give specifics so I can't respond to accusations like survivors being transphobic or playing trauma trumps. I've noticed she does that with other issues as well. I asked her what survivors had said that she considered transphobic and said that I wanted to know if I had said anything she deemed transphobic. Taztoy said she would also like to know that. Tandora was evasive and answered with one specific post but she had said survivors and, if it was only one post, why not reply to that post instead of posting something that implied all the trauma survivors were being transphobic and, later, playing trauma trumps.

IMO it's cowardly as well as evasive. If you think I've said something transphobic, respond to my post so I can defend myself and we can have a discussion about whether it is or is not transphobic, why, why it might be problematic even if not transphobic, why labeling it transphobic might be problematic, are there solutions that work for both sides, etc? But we can't do that if Tandora continues to belittle and denigrate trauma survivors by implication while refusing to directly discuss whatever it is that she deems to be problematic. I don't take it personally bc that seems to be her style of argument but IMO it's harmful as well as unproductive.

How is that not solved with stronger freedom of association laws? That situation arises explicitly because of the equality act framing that women need a justifiable excuse to meet alone.

Other people may have responded to this by now (catching up on the thread after taking a break), but if not, could I respectfully (😉) suggest you (re?)-read the various direct replies posted in response to your original? They address so many of the above points.

It's a bit hypocritical then isn't it, to say that 13 year olds (who are at a similar disadvantage against adult men) should not be able to participate, or that they should not have a league of their own or be paid just as much for their international success... If we prize excellence above all else then why do we revere paralympians or women's teams?

Earlier posts address this with fairly detailed explanations as to why the female class/grouping is far from "arbitrary", and far more meaningful than those you hypothesise.

Alternatively, if what we prize is actually to do the best with whatever handicaps we start with, then why wouldn't we want a system that does a much more complete job of matching us up against similar opponents - or do what they do in horse racing. Add different fixed weights as a starting point in weightlifting for instance, then allow direct competition.

Earlier posts address this with representative facts and stats about male/female strength difference, including: 1) how males and females even of identical height and weight have massive differences in strength, 2) an allusion to 'the Phelps gambit' (google this phrase for detailed explanations - up to the point I've read, no none's gone into it in depth, and I'm rubbish at explaining it) and 3) the key observation that, if you're suggesting going by particular physical characteristics such as height, weight etc., these are themselves arbitrary measures as they're single variables selected from a virtual infinity of other directly relevant choices (eg. lung size, skeletal structure - and I'll add, to highlight this, bone density, q-angles, heart size, body fat, hormonal factors... etc. Which do you measure? How do you test for team membership? How do you organise for fairness. The least arbitrary way to do it is clearly to recognise that these all are determined (to a greater or lesser degree, and with inevitable outliers) by membership of one of two classes - male, or female.

I'm not actually advocating that we do these things. I am however (since this is apparently a discussion thread) trying to make people think about these things from first principles and see if they hold water.

I think you did - or, more accurately, a number of posters on shared brief summaries of conclusions they've drawn after, I suspect, many months and years of reading and reflection. Besides the science above, they responded with sociological, cultural and ethical arguments, and references to women's history.

I am finding it interesting that most people here seem to feel that privilege is acceptable without really engaging and justifying why.

This surprised me given what I've read, so did prompt me to post to highlight what you may have missed (fast-moving thread, I would understand!)

You could also google (I think Google's better as a search engine that the MN one alone) other MN Sex & Gender threads on this. There have been some fantastic ones, going into all of the arguments referenced by other posters and summarised by me above, in intricate detail with a lot of links to research and articles by sports scientists etc.

It drives me absolutely insane when schools or girl guides or whatever adopt that approach. You only have to think about it for a minute.

First, there is no way teen girls should have the responsibility for deciding their own safeguarding protocols, because teen girls don't have the sense they were born with.

Second, if they decide on "we'll allow Vanessa because she's nice but we won't allow Alexis because she's weird and creepy", you end up with an arbitrary system that not only breaches safeguarding but also breaches fairness. Much fairer to everyone to say no boys allowed at all.

And finally, teen girls haven't learned yet that the boy who seems nice may be the boy you need to be worried about.

I shouldn't even have to say something this basic, but someone needs to point out to Girlguiding leadership that they're supposed to be the adults.

@SionnachRuadh I used to be a district commissioner [for my sins]. So pleased I stepped away around Lockdown because there is no way I’d have put up with this. I’d have been drummed out very noisily.

Have you ever considered clicking on "show quote history" to see quickly what was actually posted?, insread of misquoting from memory?

I just reached this point, and saw this even as I was about to post the exact same thing - what a truly fantastic thread this has been in recent pages. I'm so glad I came back to it. So many beautifully written, well-reasoned and thoroughly evidenced posts, on such a deliciously wide range of feminist issues. I'm screenshotting and bookmarking all over the place! The sports discussion, the risk-taking discussion - fab.

I don't want to dismiss Tandora - I acknowledge they went much further than most visitors do in attempting to engage in their own way, even as the way this unfolded often felt somewhat problematic (and sometimes, frankly, upsetting) - but I've found it quite telling to see how things have evolved since discussion moved away from endless wrangling about sex v. gender and a limited focus on justifying words, explaining differences and defending recently won rights.

In a way, I think this thread epitomises the impact of transactivism on feminism. Liberated to name and discuss sex difference and gender (in its earlier feminist meaning of societal and cultural standards), things flourished - a broader range of topics, far more substance - and almost consistent respectful approaches to difference of opinion often leading to a pleasing compromise or synthesis of ideas.

It's been fascinating in every sense - the early discussions too in their own way, but the later ones, a pleasure - a thread to save.

(Hopefully it stays this way - heading back now to wherever I was when I read the above!)

I believe the law caters for this by distinguishing small groups (under 25 people I think?) where the law is less prescriptive, from large groups. Someone will tell me if I'm wrong.

This is so powerful and close to what I was thinking in my last post, I hope Red doesn't mind me reposting it.

indeed. i took a smidgen of pleasure in correcting that one. 😉

I totally missed this.

Several people have told you they don't have a gender identity. I can't tell if this comment is specifically intended to make it clear you don't see agender people as trans and wish to push this belief on them.

Go and post "I don't think agender people are trans" on trans Reddit and you'll be told you're transphobic.

PP have referred to women-only associations with more than twenty-five members as needing a justification. They don't. Schedule 16 unconditionally allows people with a shared protected characteristic to form an association. The only exception is skin colour.

I think people should be allowed to have a ladies book club plus their one gay friend (even if it deeply annoys me and I feel it changes the vibe) and it's not the government's business. So they can invite their trans woman friends if they feel like it. I'll not go, but I don't think it should be illegal.

If your ladies book club with one gay member isn't a business or service but simply an association of people who want to get together for a particular purpose such as reading books, it could organise itself entirety as it wanted, providing it didn't have more than 24 members. The Equality Act rules about discrimination only apply to associations with 25 or more members.

Things must have changed since I was at university and there was very clear guidance on citing sources and how to present quotes. Particularly how to make it clear when you are truncating or changing them.

I wonder at what point in their academic career the researchers of today will come across this?

That's Stonewall law - in reality, any group sharing a PC can lawfully congregate and exclude everyone else. Also because freedom of association is a human right, enabling it is a legitimate aim for the single sex exception. IANAL but that is my understanding. It's very easy to justify single sex anything, especially for women.

ETA: Gah! cross-posted with illtempered

On the subject of sports and sex, Mel Robbins does a good podcast episode called The Body Reset: How Women Should Eat & Exercise for Health, Fat Loss, & Energy which is very interesting. She interviews a sports scientist PhD person who uses the phrase Women Are Not Small Men and goes on to show how it applies in exercise.

I was listening to it waiting for there to be a caveat, but it was just for women. It was very good.

Women Are Not Small Men

Indeed, cannot be emphasised enough!

It's pragmatic. If you're <25 you're a friendship group and can do as you please. Over 25 there need to be rules, hence the requirement for a shared protected characteristic.

I agree with PPs who thought a "woman gender" club might usefully be made possible (it isn't currently, whatever the WI thinks), because it's really a shared belief club for people who believe that everyone in the club has woman gender.

It's hard to think of how it could be done, though, without squeezing out all the single-sex clubs.