Europe must not erase sex - We must resist the imposition of activist fantasies

[IwantToRetire]

When, in mid-October, MPs from the broad left-wing bloc Nouveau Front Populaire tabled a proposal in the French Parliament to remove sex from national identity cards, they prefaced it with an explanation: having one’s sex recorded on identity documents, they claimed, is bad for equality, bad for women, and especially bad for those who identify as transgender. “It is common for an individual’s appearance not to correspond to the stereotypes associated with the sex recorded on their official papers,” they argued, followed by a non sequitur of the highest order: that sex itself is an outdated stereotype.

Feminist discussion groups exploded. One woman asked, “What happened to the French? Have they gone mad?” Truth be told, the same question could be asked of many nations today: have the Irish, Portuguese, Belgians, Germans and others gone mad? And if they have not, what explains why legislators across so many states are suddenly deciding that biological sex — not only a basic fact of human reproduction but a cornerstone of equality and non-discrimination law — is a relic of the past to be discarded like phrenology or geocentrism?

The almost 70 left-wing MPs who backed the proposal in the French National Assembly also claimed that, unlike a person’s height — also recorded on ID cards — recording a person’s sex is not in line with international human rights standards set by the United Nations, the Council of Europe and the European Union. Considering recent developments in these institutions, it seems, at least on the surface, difficult to argue against that claim.

Article continues at https://thecritic.co.uk/europe-must-not-erase-sex/

You’ve reached peak bollocks here. Lived experience as a female shows you that men will try desperately to procreate with you regardless of sexual attractiveness or femininity. Just having a vagina will do, the rest is social construct. Chat not is not your friend.

@Howseitgoin here you are again. And I’ve decided my mental health can cope for the length of time it takes me to tell you that single sex exemptions exist as a proportionate and reasonable aim to keep women safe. Because men, regardless of their gender identity, commit 98% of all sexual assaults. And having a man in a women’s toilet, even if he’s in a dress and wearing lippy, will severely traumatise me and other women like me.

Also. Cis as an identifier isn’t needed. Woman works just fine. The identifier that will work in the cases you are talking about it trans. Trans women - a subset of men. Because in the U.K. sex means biological sex.

And thank fuck for it.

When my rapist raped me I was in black trousers and a jumper. I wasn’t performing femininity to try to get me a man. And honestly to say that is what happens is, in my opinion, a slippery slope to rape apology. But that doesn’t surprise me because some of what @Howseitgoin has addressed to me in the past has been abhorrent, in my opinion.

Queen Theory in a nutshell, the gospel according to Butler.

Perfectly placed!

Love Amy Sousa and her cut-glass clarity.

I have a theory that all of these young men come to her on tik tok seeking, however unconsciously, exactly this clarity of boundaries that she gives.

There's lots in this movement, generally, around ambivalence of both rejecting and desperately seeking boundaries I think.

As embodiment (where boundaries are key) is Amy Sousa's area of expertise, she is particularly strong on explaining this.

What I find fascinating is looking at it as microcosm and macrocosm (from individual level to cultural level). So, from the necessity of experiencing the bodily boundary to develop the individual's sense of self, to the boundaries needed in personal relationships, and outward in safeguarding and laws in society.

It strikes me that if a family therapist helped a parent with establishing reasonable boundaries to help the psychological safety/relationship with/family dynamics of a child- this would be considered a healthy intervention.

On the large scale, with this particular group (trans identified men), women pushing back are like the therapist - pointing out that total permissiveness may feel loving and easier, but it serves no-one in the long run.
But at this level- any intervention to encourage assertive balance is seen as bigoted and cruel and authoritarian.

Watching this video made me think about something else I myself didn't fully understand until later life, and I think it is a point so many people don't see as it's rarely articulated.
It's that boundaries are relational; not just affecting the one who does or doesn't hold them.

It's interesting that the trans activist movement talks so much about safety, and even psychological safety- as feelings of safety are so strongly correlated with boundaries, and yet the activism pushes for boundarylessness. And this reminds me of how chaotic and deeply insecure children are often drawn to the calm and fair but strict teacher at school. They feel that they want to just be totally unhindered, but at another level they crave, and know they need, being around someone with clear boundaries in order to actually feel safe.

So, coming back to my key point that the video reminded me of: that with parenting and other relationships-effective asserting of the boundary is not telling the other person what they must or must do, it's about stating and holding to what I will or will not accept for my own, and other's, safety and wellbeing.

Authoritarian is telling other what they must do- about controlling others.
Assertive is drawing a line around what is acceptable regarding impacts to me and others.

In resisting the boundary, assertiveness could be experienced, initially, as authoritarian, by those being pushed back on. That's no surprise.
This is because they are not yet able to see the asserter as differentiated from themselves (boundaryless). So, someone saying 'I will not accept this for myself/those I am also responsible for' is heard as 'you are being prevented/withheld from'. (I think this is where psychology links with feminism and could go off on another whole tangent! )

With the example of adult and child though, if the line is reliably held, this eventually helps the child find their own edges, as well as feel safer in the relationship.

Anyway, what has been most surprising to me is, all the other adults joining in on seeing and calling healthy assertiveness authoritarian.

Aside from this being a shocking dislocation from everything I thought we had learned about psychological development, healthy relationships, leadership etc over the years; this then leaves no possibility for the healthy change that can happen (and what the non-boundaried are often unconsciously seeking I think), when assertive self-boundarying has positive gains for the other too.

It would be like a parent trying to do this work of creating a physically and psychologically safer relationship and environment, and all of the authorities telling the child to ignore the parent as they are just a bully. (And yes, we do see this happening literally too).

I might not be explaining this thread of thought very well! Maybe Amy or someone else has articulated this particular point; about differentiating between assertiveness and authoritarianism.
Especially as being accused of authoritarianism and far right is so large in the discourse right now.

Please let me know if you have come across anything that does this.

I recently saw a local news story about a number of non-binary people who were business owners. The angle was showcasing these people as underrepresented trailblazers or something. And all I could think when I read the headline was are these the men kind or the women kind. They were all the men kind.

It's a fucking joke. Sexists know which people they think are inferior. Pretending that we don't know only serves misogynists.

Sorry haven't read whole thread for obvious reasons. This article by Sarah Ditum is relevant. Why are the left so obsessed with utopian answers to problems. Meanwhile the poor stay poor and the rich stay rich and middle class grifters pat themselves on the back.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/b70d6267-0ef2-4a53-94bc-ab78151c510a?shareToken=a26a40ef105217b2e6d863c9b149c949
Good intentions can be a terrible thing. Back in 2022, when the Black Lives Matter protest movement was at its peak and liberal politicians were falling over themselves to show how much they cared about trans people, the state of California passed something called the Safer Streets for All Act (SB 357). What came next is a parable of well-meaning activism colliding with reality.

>For example the "proportional rule" in the UK refers to the legal principle that allows for the proportionate exclusion of trans women from women-only spaces, a concept affirmed by a recent Supreme Court ruling. This means a service can exclude trans women from spaces like hospital wards or rape crisis centers, but only if it's a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim".

You have misunderstood this. The SC court said that it was proportional to exclude Trans-identifying women (“trans men”) from female only services, if it was a proportionate means etc - for example if their masculinized aspect would affect female attendees sufficiently negatively.

it said nothing about excluding trans-identifying men under this test, which would be an everyday and necessary step based on the purpose of the service.

As if. The men always know who the women are when it comes to knowing who to rape.

How can sex be acknowledged behind the doctor’s door if officially it does not exist? If the law states that sex does not exist, acknowledging it behind the doctor’s door becomes as much of a crime as drug dealing - it’s not legal just because it’s done in private. We have already seen what happens behind the doctor’s door when sex is not acknowledged: trans-identifying women being under-treated because kidney-function test results are interpreted with reference to male parameters, or becoming seriously ill with an ectopic pregnancy because men cannot be pregnant.

Women who have had hysterectomies are still women. The fact that they had a hysterectomy and not, say, a prostectomy, proves that they are women. Only a woman can have a uterus for it to removed.

As long as it’s not a neo-vag. No man wants to procreate with one of those, regardless of sexual attractiveness or femininity. Funny, that.

Yes. I don’t know if you’ve misunderstood me. I was giving an example of the ridiculousness of the TRA argument that they will say “if sex is about biology then a woman who is infertile/has had a hysterectomy/hasn’t been pregnant” can’t be a woman, so “womanhood” must be defined by something other than biology……”

Yawn... Here we go again, back on the merry-go-round of immaterial and unprovable "gender identity" being somehow more important that very material reproductive sex, which comes in only two forms - male and female. We all know it's nonsense, yet here we are... 🙄

I was agreeing with you and outlining why you are correct.

@JellySaurus I agree with the need for adequate data. I dispute that "race" is an adequate variable because, on top of being morally wrong, it it cannot be correctly categorized (again, based on what I wrote above, what should I answer to "what race I am" ? What should Obama answer ?). Just like the bullshit that is gender.

Place of birth and/or citizenship of parents or grandparents, for instance, is factual and not "feeling-y". And it' perfectly legal in France to collect data based on it, by the way.
Even Pantone of skin color would be more factual than "race".

I’m not saying it’s illegal, I’m saying that decades ago the French didn’t consider it necessary to collect data that would help identify inequalities. I don’t know that ‘race’ would necessarily have been the right category, either. As you say, it can be a very subjective rubric. Parental place of birth and date of arrival in France might be more informative. The point is that refusing to collect any such data because of the belief that saying that everyone had equally regardless of origin meant that they had equality, made it impossible for them to recognise that place of origin was exactly the reason certain people did not have equality.

And it looks like they want to do the same thing, again. Only this time with sex.

Have only just come back to this thread that I started late last night.

What a waste of time posting the article.

Why is anyone spending time getting caught up in a known hijacker of threads.

I am sure there are relevant responses to the article amongst the 5 pages of response, but suspect the majority are those getting bogged down in whatabouterry.

So wont be reading.

Dont feed the trolls.

Just to be clear, not "they". A group of far-left MPs, the equivalent of Corbynites (including with respect to ambiguous positions re antisemitism) who do not hold the majority of Parliament (not that the rest aren't clowns...) France is currently much less enthralled by GI than many countries, eg we have legal sex change but at least the birth certificate is never changed (the mention of legal sex change is added on the side but never replaces "birth sex")

And it's a fact that there are lots of official data using parental place of birth, previous citizenship, date of arrival in France and the likes, whatever your former landlady claimed. Only race and ethnicity are illegal personal info to collect. That's what made me react strongly.

But with Frances politics being in such turmoil, are the far-left group likely to gain more power?
Good on France for not changing birth sex, if only our plonkers had been that sensible.

Nope, they may totally wipe out the center-left but not win in the foreseeable future, if anything the far right (kind of Reform like, although they are much more in favour of public spending than say Labour) could be the next party in power. Not that it pleases me.
But it's a shitshow, honestly. I'm ashamed for them all and of us for voting them in.

"If gendered presentation and behaviours are caused by sex and the expression of biological inclinations, why aren't they the same for women the world over and throughout history?"

Cultural pressures have a habit of repressing natural urges. See: Closeted homosexuals & veiled women. Therefore any reliable assessment needs to be undertaken in more egalitarian countries of which sex differences in behaviour have been shown to be even greater.

https://2024.sci-hub.ru/7108/9ac6bb052a6e0092264ca5f4c6f7a414/macgiolla2018.pdf

You are conflating two different concepts. I'm not suggesting people making themselves more attractive to the opposite sex is the only requirement for them to be attractive rather there's an inclination to do so which bears out in consumerist choices. Sales data don't lie.

"This is an interesting post. It seems to approve of the exclusion of transwomen from women only space/sports etc., and the reaffirmation of 'sex' as meaning 'biological sex' by the UK Supreme Court."

Nope, not absolutely as I take a more nuanced position. It's just making the point that competing rights can & have been managed where jurisdictions allow. That the details haven't been ironed out in the UK yet is a function of process rather than an impossibility. Practical policy assessment & implementation takes time given the obvious widespread ramifications. Will everyone be happy? Welcome political reality where everyone rarely is. The social contract requires us all to make compromises that mature adults understand.

"does not apply in jurisdictions where the category of biological sex has been eliminated from legislation."

I live in Australia where sex is deemed as changeable under law & there isn't any meaningful electoral pressure to change that so that's irrelevant & will likely to continue to be so since our population hasn't been subjected to a full blown media driven manufactured moral panic.