Gransnet forums

News & politics

Self Indentitying Women

(171 Posts)
TerriBull Sun 28-Jan-18 11:33:31

Andrew Marr posed this issue to Jeremy Corbyn today, he was quite emphatic, the position of the Labour Party is, that if an individual born male, identifies as a woman then as far as the party is concerned he/she is a woman. AM also put it to JC this will alienate many women within the party, so much so they will resign their membership. Should the desires of an infantesimal proportion of society trounce the rights of half of the population?

maryeliza54 Wed 31-Jan-18 15:00:21

As for access to services that at the moment are allowed to be women only, then this really needs addressing re SI. To date under current legislation so far as I know there is no case law on trans women with a GRC being allowed to access women only services. But in Canada, several years ago a challenge about a trans woman being allowed to train to work in a women’s only refuge was fought right up to the Supreme Court and she eventually lost. IIRC the judge made some comment about differentiating between women who had lived and experienced their whole lives as women and trans women who clearly had not. Also at the moment if I want to see a biological woman medical professional I can request that although I may have to wait. With SI would I still have that right to request and if I turned up and it was a SI transwoman( as was reported reliably recently to have happened) would I be guilty of discrimination? The Canada case took years to resolve - do we want to be in that situation of individual women and small women only organisations havimg to fight through the courts - well they wouldn’t would they, it would be prohibitively expensive and take years - if I were raped and couldnt be assured of a biological women only support group,then I just wouldn’t go. So my rights would be taken away from me - not fair, not right. It’s a pity that all these TRA don’t spend more time setting up specific services for themselves rather than wanting to take over services for women.

Azie09 Wed 31-Jan-18 16:55:25

Maryeliza I think you make many reasonable points. I am sorry for those who are genuinely in the process of transgender but a rush into law at a time when money and resources are so scarce will, to my mind, lead to cut corners and unsatisfactory outcomes.

At the end of the New Statesman article, it said 'If the gender revolution means a voyeur's right to be seen as a woman is being placed ahead of women's right to be safe from a voyeur, something has gone very wrong'. This seems fair enough to me.

A number of posters have said that those who are worried are scaremongering or ignoring the difficulties of those who desire to transition and that the 'few' who cause trouble will be dealt with by the legislation and the authorities. However, as far as I can see the average citizen has little idea that this is happening (some of us don't read the tabloids!), there has been and will be no 'opportunity' to vote on it (bizarre idea!) and the idea that the first many will know of it will be when they find that primary school children are being encouraged to consider which gender they think they are is reprehensible.

A lot of fine intentions, insistence on how these matters should be dealt with and possible numbers involved are being bandied about but how many of us are on the inside and seriously know about and are able to influence something that may well have a very serious effect on our multiple gendered future?

FarNorth Thu 01-Feb-18 02:21:14

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41384473

James Caspian wanted to do research into the subject of people who have changed gender and then regretted doing so.
Bath University refused permission.

He is now crowdfunding to take Bath University to court.

www.crowdjustice.com/case/uphold-freedom-of-speech-in-our-universities/?utm_campaign=uphold-freedom-of-speech-in-our-universities&utm_source=backer_social&utm_reference=a604615fbb9fb274e1fa5b9a924ac97d&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_content=post_pledge_popup

maryeliza54 Thu 01-Feb-18 08:24:49

If this turns out to be as reported, anyone who thinks this is not chilling is living in cloud cuckoo land - my use of the phrase ‘the new orthodoxy’ is increasingly accurate. Once the state (as represented by Bath Uni in this case) censors certain types of research and thus limits the knowledge base which contributes to informed decision making in a society, we are truly heading towards an authoritarian nightmare.

LumpySpacedPrincess Thu 01-Feb-18 12:04:57

So long as one sex commits 98% of sexual violence and almost all violence across the globe then the other sex deserves to retain their hard won, sex based rights. Biology is not bigotry. Being a woman is not lipstick, a dress or a thought in a mans head.

Progress would be allowing both sexes to wear what they like and love whom they please, without judgement. Changing the meaning of woman from adult human female to an outdated sexist stereotype is harmful.

This movement is seeing increasing older men identifying as women and having no treatment. Then at the other end we have children taking puberty blockers then, inevitably, untested cross sex hormones that are making
them patients for life.

If you are cool with this then you have to open to trans black, trans species and trans age.

trisher Thu 01-Feb-18 21:45:33

Actually I have a bit of a problem with James Caspian. He seems to be blurring the line between counsellor and researcher. If I was receiving counselling from someone I don't think I would want that person to be conducting research into the condition he/she was counselling me about. I would feel he might use the information I was providing in confidence to boost his research.

Primrose65 Thu 01-Feb-18 21:52:24

trisher, all research requires informed consent. He can't use anything 'provided in confidence' and everyone who he interviews for research is told exactly what their opinions will be used for.

FarNorth Thu 01-Feb-18 21:52:33

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/edc9d44c-03a3-11e8-825e-96e193a013c1

Teacher, Roy Wilkes, almost lost his job because of making similar comments to yours, Princess.

trisher Thu 01-Feb-18 22:07:09

I know that Primrose65 that doesn't mean that vulnerable people would be reassured does it?

Primrose65 Thu 01-Feb-18 22:35:45

Sorry trisher, I was replying to your post where you said you thought he might use the information. I certainly wouldn't want anyone reading the thread to think professionals in any area would just use confidential information like that. I would imagine that vulnerable people would either trust their counseller or not use them?
Or are you proposing that people who provide a professional service to anyone considered vulnerable should not conduct any academic research at all? I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make.

Eloethan Fri 02-Feb-18 00:34:37

Having read all the comments on here, and the linked comments of lesbians on Mumsnet, I am now thoroughly confused.

I'm not sure what I think about any of it, except to say that I think it would be better if every person - whatever they identify themselves as - could try not to hurt the feelings of others and be respectful of different points of view. There seems to be so much fear and distrust being generated from all quarters on this particular issue and it really is quite depressing.

maryeliza54 Fri 02-Feb-18 07:49:16

But that’s not going to happen is it Eloe and so imo it’s perfectly rational and logical to expect a legislative framework to help regulate our behaviour.

Eloethan Fri 02-Feb-18 08:58:01

What sort of legislative framework?

trisher Fri 02-Feb-18 10:53:18

P65 I think that anyone conducting research needs to ensure that any counselling they do is not only seperate but that there is no posssibility that the area they are researching could bring them into conflict with either the people they are counselling or others with similar problems. It's simply a matter of seperating academic research and professional counselling. Are you really saying that there isn't sometimes conflict and that professionals have never used confidential information wrongly? It may not happen often, but there should be no posssibility that it could happen. That way everyone is properly protected.

trisher Fri 02-Feb-18 10:56:20

I always think it is very dangerous to use extremes of behaviour as a basis for framing laws and good practice. If this was to be the norm in society we would have such restrictive and draconian laws nothing would function properly. Legislation rules for the average and then cases to challenge the legislation and establish exceptions can be made.

Primrose65 Fri 02-Feb-18 11:13:54

trisher, I'm sure people conducting research have got things wrong. I mean, pharma companies spent years just testing drugs only on men! I didn't know why you specifically had an issue with James Caspian as you thought he was 'blurring the lines'. I can't see how he was doing that.

maryeliza54 Fri 02-Feb-18 11:44:59

The ethical framework within which research is conducted ensures the separation of the research role and the professional role. For example in this particular case, he would not be allowed to be counselling the people he was interviewing for the research.

trisher Fri 02-Feb-18 17:04:07

But the section of society he is dealing with is relatively small. And from the proposed subject of his research it would seem evident that he is using information he has unearthed in sessions to establish parameters. Not good practice.

haporthrosie Sun 04-Feb-18 04:24:05

As usual I'm much too late to take part in a very interesting discussion. Will chuck a few thoughts in anyway.

The impression I get (from the world in general, not the OP) is that some people seem to think there's a magical country called Woman, and they can simply cry 'I defect!' and hey presto, they are fully-fledged citizens of their chosen nation.

If someone chooses to live in a country other than that of their birth, and do so legally, it takes time and effort.

Add to this the fact that people are a bit more complicated than countries, and that anything to do with sexuality in any form is one of the most complex things about we rum things called people, and it's quite a subject.

I was born into a world of straight, gay, lesbian, bi, cross-dressers, and good-tempered dressers. I was raised by these people and I wouldn't change one bit of anything about it. It was quite normal to consider same-sex couples married and beyond the pale to measure any human being by any standards other than those of compassion and respect. One of my dearest friends was born male and, decades ago, became a woman through a series of operations that called for tremendous commitment. Not a day goes by that I don't miss her terribly.

A few of these friends and family members ventured into politics, public works, etc. Most did not, but the ones who did focused on the sort of things Rosieroe mentioned - things that affect the entire population and had nothing to do with themselves as defined by sexuality. They would have found, and those above ground still do, the idea incredibly demeaning.

I see a whacking great red flag when people in public life seem to think that gender issues are more important than, say, healthcare, child abuse, homelessness, etc. It's the same red flag I see whenever there's blatant self-interest at work: when rich politicians try to enforce policies that will make them richer, and so on. (Most of the time, sadly!)

The poor souls trapped in Grenfell Towers probably didn't have gender identity uppermost in their minds as the flames closed in. We've got to take care of the basics first. Everyone's idea of 'the basics' will be different, but one of my many mad ideas is that having safe places to live might deserve a slightly higher place on the list of priorities than gender issues.

That probably sounds much harsher than I intended. I care enormously about the way LGBTetc. people (all the ones I used to be able to group under the heading of 'people') feel and are treated ... the ones who are my friends and family happen, by and large, to agree with me. That's a lot of LGBTetc. people.

My grandparents and parents knew an amazing chap who did ground-breaking research in hormones, genetics, and sexuality/gender. (I know everyone says 'ground-breaking' about everything these days, but his work really was.) His findings were astonishing: the number of people born with hormone levels at extreme variance with their biological sex was greater than anyone had previously imagined. This increases dramatically as children enter puberty. The amount of children born with both sets (or very nearly both sets) of genitalia is greater than most people would want to know. I fully understand that many people feel 'trapped' in the wrong body: it must be horrendous and my heart goes out to them.

However ...

I know I'm the world's biggest bore about 'I don't think this is really about (blank), I think it's about (blank),' and I am sorry, but ... I think that this is frequently about both the over-sexualisation of society on the whole, and the 'I feel this way and I can demand because I feel' culture.

Someone else wrote something about 'the me culture' ... I think it was on this thread but could quite possibly be confused! I'm very sorry I didn't make a note of the person's name. And it's possible that the remark may have been in reference to an entirely different subject! Either way I think it applies here.

I can't imagine going through life full of male hormones in a female body, or vice versa. It would be a nightmare, but many people have found ways to deal with it maturely. If you can't deal with anything about your life maturely, if you can't understand that people have very legitimate concerns for the safety of some of the most vulnerable in our society, please go away til you've found an appropriate way to air your views. I'll gladly listen to you when you've discretion enough to combine your beliefs with a form of behaviour that approximates the age of sexual consent (or, hopefully, over.) N.B. I mean people in the public forum, not on GN!

It feels so much like we're being dictated to by adolescents who've just discovered their sexuality, but haven't yet learnt its part in the scheme of things. When it hits you it's overwhelming, marvelous, and a bit terrifying. You're giddy and you've no idea that to the rest of the world you just seem a bit ridiculous. At the time, that's the way it's meant to be. It isn't meant to stay that way, though, is it?

SueDonim, thank you so much for your posts. I've learnt a tremendous amount.

So much division and hatred in this world of 'inclusiveness.' I'll never understand it. Surely most of us heard Prince sing 'act your age, not your shoe size' but not many listened!

haporthrosie Sun 04-Feb-18 05:26:24

Right, that was my initial reaction off my chest.

There's been so much exceptionally well thought-through writing here, and so many people have shown how debates can really grow when ideas go back and forth. Amazing what can be learnt from something like this. The articles you've taken the time to share and actually read are remarkable. This thread should win some sort of 'What the Internet Can Be' award.

The country could be completely turned round if those in power (across all parties) would be willing to put just a bit of the thought and time into their work that people have put into this conversation. Though it's a terrifying subject it's been handled here in a way that's put some heart back into me.

Maryeliza, Azie, and Lumpy - among many others - make excellent points with which I agree. It is a 'new orthodoxy' and we're being told that if we don't join the lemming-rush we're 'haters.' Just how hard the ground will be for all the lemmings is going to come as quite a shock. The fact that it isn't about discrimination or bigotry is so simple and so obvious. What a breath of fresh air this has been!

Well, after my little diatribe I just wanted to thank everyone who's made this a perfect example of computer communication actually working. There are so many on GN I wish were MP's! Hope everyone has a lovely Sunday.