Services and spaces should be separated according to gender, not sex

[BackToLurk]

Because that’s the argument isn’t it? If trans rights activists and their allies accept that no one changes sex, then what they are really arguing for is that any separation should actually be made on the basis of gender.

As I’m a helpful sort, I’ve started a whole thread for people to make that argument. Off you go fellas. Bring your brightest. Make your case. I really do want to hear it. (And I’m not, for once, being sarcastic).

oh I would pay good money to see that...

a bit like how bees wiggle their bottoms to tell the location of pollen...
a Doris Uhlich-esque dance of naked men and women wiggling their bottoms to demonstrate that sex is binary 🤔there is probably an Arts Council grant for that 😂

Where are these “straight only groups” then? Love to know.

Which one were you?

Alarmingly, there is one on there that could have been me!!

Yes, all these things could become legal once you have changed the law to allow everyone to decide to randomly discriminate against whoever they want.

@Alcovecupboards seems to think that the law "should" allow "inclusive" LGBT+ groups to exist. They don't realize it already does - there are plenty of them.

More interesting is the cases of the lesbian groups who want to exclude men, and who are not allowed to, because "inclusivity." I am thinking of L Community, in Southwark.

I wonder if @Alcovecupboards has an opinion about that?

I think the proposal is for "straight only" services.

Well that is MNHQ re-writing history.

A very, very few posters on FWR said they didn't want to hear others being "unkind". ie they wanted a space there they could be kind and women wouldn't say that you cant change sex.

So this board is, and always was the space where women are entitled to say you cant change sex, and not have to spend time defending say that political position.

The division was done in an underhand way, that no one asked for and no one was consulted.

So this shiny new version only in fact implies MNHQ are doubly underming the right of women to have sex based rights views. A forum was set up (chat) to not have anyone make such a statement because it was "unkind". Now they are saying not only did we have to create a "safe space" for the bekind feminists, those of us who are GC are not allowed to have our own space and but are constantly made to have to justify explaining this.

The is why so many threads on this forum are tediously repetitive.

Not only is it insulting to those who are gender critical that they have to justify themselves, it is also inherently negative to be bogged down in very basic discussions as it thwarts moving on to be proactive.

Please provide the link to the site stuff thread as I am more than prepared to ask them how they thought they could tell us what we are permitted to say.

The status of FWR as being a powerful feminist forum is based on those who contribute.

Why would MNHQ want to undermine their right to be able to have a positive experience.

But if MNHQ is saying they dont want GC feminist to have a voice that should have the guts to come on this forum and say why they want to bog us down to groundhog day discussions.

The sheer dissonance of saying this board was for TRAs to come and tell GC women they cant be GC is totally bonkers.

Not only is that not true at the time, but must have been some intern whose only knowledge of feminism is from university.

I have said a number of times there should be a forum on MN for trans ideologies. But certainly not clogging up FWR.

to be fair - all that the TRA view brings to the forum is to make obvious to everyone how illogical / oppressive / misogynistic / aggressive / inaccurate / etc. their arguments are - they do themselves no favours and strengthen the GC view

To also be fair, I don’t think @alcovecupboards considers herself to be a TRA. She considers herself to be a feminist who thinks that sometimes it is appropriate to separate services by gender rather than sex. I don’t think she’s demonstrated that this is lawful, workable or legitimate, but she is entitled to have a go.

Maybe she’ll even come out of this with a better understanding of the law as it stands.

What would the legitimate aim of a woman's group that wants to accept men who say they are women and not women who say they are men or just men?

Asked and answered.

And if they dare to call themselves a women's group - they are banned and threatened with lawsuits. Hardly allowed, is it? You want to force others to confirm to your own beliefs. Just own it.

M/F speed dating events, social groups based solely around women who date men, gay only groups exist, black women's forum's exist... I suppose you'd have to leave the house to realise that they exist.

Can you copy and paste the answer you think, because 'I want it' is not a legitimate aim. Think about how you might answer it if you were in a tribunal maybe, not a kindergarden.

I'm aware of the guidance - I specifically said legislation. Which is not, contrary to popular belief here, the law.

You are objecting to the fact that humans can’t change sex, yes? Thats not my belief, it's a fact.

I suggest you take that up with Mother Nature. It’s certainly not my fault 🤷‍♀️

Being transgender is a recognised situation. That rather suggests there should be specific accommodations. You may disagree and that's fine. But let's not pretend what we're discussing here involves nuance.

Firstly, it’s not and secondly, on what grounds would there be accusations for ‘gender identity’?

What about accommodations for star signs? Myers Briggs profiles? Favourite colour? Favourite band?

Bless your heart, you have just told us that legislation is not the law. Are you sure you don't need to have a nice lie-down in a darkened room with a cold cloth on your brow?

I think you are confusing situations that are outside the remit of the Equality Act, associations, services and positive action.

The problem is not who you are include, but who you exclude and on what basis, and the rules are different depending on the situation.

It's one thing to target a particular demographic, and another to exclude people on the basis of a protected characteristic.

Recognised by who? How do we recognise a 'transgender' person? How does an organiser know what specific accommodations need to be enacted and how they interact with the 'legitimate aims' of a group?

You’re confusing ‘aimed at’ with ‘exclude’.

No, I'm going to pop the laptop down and enjoy the Traitors with my family. While you can continue working yourself into a frothy fury over trans people existing.