The two questions they all need to be asked

[OhSister]

In the midst of the backlash over the Supreme Court decision and EHRC guidance, self-proclaimed 'progressives' who support gender ideology at the expense of sex-based protections need to be asked two simple questions. The 'what is a woman?' question was used to very good effect and in my view, it's time to move on to these:

1.  Do you accept that being born with female reproductive anatomy is a characteristic on the basis of which people have been marginalised, disadvantaged and abused?
   

2.  If the answer to question 1 is yes, can you explain why you take the view that this particular marginalised group is one that is not deserving of explicit protection (by 'sex' meaning 'sex') in the Equality Act?
   

I have been involved in these discussion since before 2015 and I know that these points have been made many times over by people more articulate than I am. But like many here, it is particularly frustrating to me when the likes of Amnesty International or the ACLU in the USA position themselves as the defenders of Human Rights while championing such a regressive, misogynist, homophobic movement.

I have rarely if ever heard the question put to anyone in that way, or heard them challenged on why their enthusiasm for intersectionality doesn't at the very least include female reproductive anatomy as a valid intersection with their new definition of 'woman' (but rather re-casts being part of that uniquely marginalised group as possessing 'cis privilege'). I don't subscribe to the idea that there is such thing as a 'woman' gender, but even if I did, logic would suggest that, just as it's reasonable for there to be specific groups or programmes for those who are both women and disabled, or both women and black, or both women and Muslim, it is also reasonable for some things to be for 'women' as genderists would like to broadly understand the term, and others to be for those who are both 'women' and also of the group born with female reproductive biology. But no, oppression on the basis of biological sex has to be completely disregarded as a valid axis of oppression. If JKR had set up a service specifically for women who also had a disability, or were also immigrants, would that service be branded 'anti-rights' by Amnesty?

Sorry for the rant. What do you think of the questions, how would you improved them, and how do we get them asked of the right people?

What TW want is, if single sex spaces exist, they are admitted by default.

What that means in practice is for women to campaign for or build the services based around sex differences, and then use switched to gender. Where gender can mean sex, or whatever TW want it to mean.

TRA response to the SC ruling is never that we need to build up services based around gender. Its always sex but with TW inclusion after its been built, or burn it all down and have unisex.

The questions to ask is why the switch from sex to gender. And if we were to design spaces and opportunities based around gender, what is the need and what will these spaces look like?

Think it depends on what device you're using. I don't see a slide bar, so grateful to @OhSister for posting the complete questions.

There are indeed some interesting comments there.

However, "If you are a cis woman who feels threatened by trans women, I think that is something you need to work through, not a reason to police trans women in your spaces." Shades of Mridul Wadhwa saying that "bigoted" rape victims who didn't want transwomen male counsellors should be reeducated: "please also expect to be challenged on your prejudices".

So many of the comments basically come down to, "TWAW so women there is no logical reason for women to be scared," Like this one: "I think they view trans women as men. So they feel like its appropriate to treat trans women like they do men - aka excluding them from various things, socializing in a certain way, etc." Well, yes, duh.

There are a lot of deletions of course, which probably said the kind of things most of us would say.

This is encapsulated by the silly little man in the video I posted who Michelle Dewberry is arguing with. She asks him repeatedly why she should be expected to get changed in front of a man. He has absolutely no answer except “but trans women are women”.

It's interesting because not many users are saying these men pass.

I think some comments are written within the constraints of reddit. As in 'some women believe x...which is wrong, but'.

Lots of trans logic - their feelings about being a women are genuine and not externally influenced, but women feelings are not genuine and based on what they read in right wing press.

Also women are wrong to blame all men for the actions of some, but TW need space away from men.

Men are saying they know they haven't had surgery or taken drugs yet, but use women's spaces. Then others are saying 'cis men' wouldn't go to the trouble and pain of transitioning to use women's spaces.

I know its different redditors, but it does show how the ideology isnt consistent. Its just men need to use women only spaces, but women dont need space away from men.

Yes I agree @Pingponghavoc

Reddit muppets.

We are women. Not 'cis' women.

We are not a subset of our own sex class.

Women
Transwomen

Reality bites. And I make no apologies for it.

There were a couple of transwomen in that group who said they felt some sympathy for women who felt threatened by biological men in their spaces. And others who said that it was irrelevant whether women were genuinely afraid or were just pretending that they were afraid (while having an agenda against transwomen). As in - transwomen's wishes to be treated as women have precedence over women's feelings, even if those women are genuinely afraid due to having been attacked by men in the past.

None of the posts I read were confused about the 'bigoted' logic, though. Everyone understood that TW are somehow different from women. Women are now dismissed because of the perception of risk, not the fact that TWareliterallyW. That wouldn't have been the case 6 or 7 years ago.

It may be how TRA have moved on from TWAW to TW are marginalised and womens spaces are now safe spaces?

There was debate sub on reddit for a while, and some TW did acknowledge the danger from a section of TW. They talked about how they behaved and that they dont want trans only spaces because they dont want to be alone with them.

I think its allies who are the ones promote the idea that all TW are lovely because they are trans.

They talked about how they behaved and that they dont want trans only spaces because they dont want to be alone with them.

Wow, that's quite the eye-opener.

You're on to something there, pingpong. I have started seeing the acronym 'FLINTA' turning up on social media, as in "public toilets and changing rooms should be designated for Cis Men, and FLINTA"

It stands for Female, Lesbian, Intersex, Nonbinary, Trans, Agender.

As long as the men have their own private space, everyone else can just bunch in together. What could possibly go wrong?

I know it's not an original observation, but at times like this I really miss the laugh emoji. It's just occurred to me, however, that what we need even more is one for the most extreme eyeroll ever..

That would be awesome.

I agree with you OP, and I don't think your wording is too complicated.

Why would anyone do this?

If there are no grounds for excluding anyone from being described as 'FLINTA', why bother with any kind of segregation? Much cheaper just to have mixed sex toilets.

It’s the same as the Greens’ notorious “non men” category label.

Because they can maintain the pretence that the group called “cis men” are the only reason to segregate by “gender”.

But on what grounds would one assert that a man is 'cis'?

That he wasn’t calling himself a woman or “non binary” - entirely self ID.

They'll say, men Feel like men. Transwomen Feel like women because they were always meant to be one and they are very brave

Right. 'Feel'. It's the only difference.

But this is the point of this particular question. If you boil the difference down to feelings you can then rapidly move on to.

Why do their feelings trump ours?
How do they know what 'feeling' like a woman is like?
And most importantly.. if it's a feeling. How to we tell the difference between 'genuine' trans and bad faith actors?

My main motivation for the question is the reverse the burden of evidence. Make it about how men are men, commit male crimes, feel like men, are the SAME as men. Making it less about women's 'feelings' which don't matter obvs.

It's established in law: there is a large group who have the characteristic of being born unambiguously biologically female in common.

They are half the bloody population. Called women, in law.

Should women and gay people be allowed to have rights to privacy and dignity that men with gender identities find inconvenient?

I don't want blether: yes or no.

Should women and gay people not able or willing to conform to this sex-based hierarchy of submission to male interests above their own, be punished for this? And have no access to resources or spaces? Or equality?

No blether. I don't want to hear how it's complicated, which is a cowardly excuse at best and wholly irrelevant to the terrified woman about to be strip searched by a man with a certificate at home. Yes or no?

This group will include very large numbers of women from minority religions, minority cultures, working class women, women with disabilities, women with trauma from MVAWG.

If the answers to above are yes, is the speaker aware that these exclusionary and sexist/religiously intolerant/xenophobic/homophobic/classist/colonialist /superior and affluent values are in fact very heavily right wing?

You'd have to go further back than Thatcher to actually find a sufficiently right wing leader who was that heavily punitive to the lesser beings. Disraeli possibly?

Why do so many of these men behave exactly like men then?