Gender again. Sorry!

[theclaud]

Not actually sorry, but you know what I mean...

There are some upsides to isolating with COVID. I read this today, and found it extremely interesting. It's a report from a four-year research project at KCL exploring possible approaches to gender-related legal reform.

Predictably, it has elicited some knee-jerk reactions, but it's nuanced, visionary, big-picture stuff and its understanding of gender is much more sophisticated than anything emerging from either side of the mainstream culture wars, whilst being understanding of the core concerns behind polarised positions. I would implore anyone already invested in the subject to read the full report with an open mind. If time is tight there is a summary of key findings from the end of last year...

 

[winjim]

That looks pretty ambitious and definitely worth a read. I too have been stricken with the plague for the last few days and didn't have the mental capacity for anything half as interesting, I just needled people over on the strike thread.

I must remember to read it properly first before I head on over to twitter to find out what the zealots think about it.

Edit: and please don't apologise. Contrary to what some may think, I am of the opinion that this is an interesting topic worthy of discussion, albeit carried out in a sensible fashion in an appropriate place. But if it goes silly, I will take the piss.

 

[PK99]

It does not start well:

"Phase Two explored the implications of abolishing or radically reforming the legal gendering of personhood."

Gobbledygook personified!

 

[AuroraSaab]

I haven't read the whole thing yet but on some important points it really is just magical thinking.

The authors propose that self ID (ie I am a man/woman simply because I say I am) will somehow encourage society to do away with stereotypes of masculine and feminine and we will all be free to dress and act how we will like, simply because our sex is no longer recorded on our birth certificates. They say that people who do not conform to stereotypes of male and female, who are 'non binary or gender queer' will be 'free of the penalties' of living outside the M and F categories simply because we no longer record your sex. Wouldn't it be better to tell kids that they can pretty much do/be what they want, regardless of their sex? We can dismantle stereotypes if we put the effort in, we don't have to pretend that sex doesn't matter to do so.

They go on to talk about single sex spaces like prisons, domestic violence refuges, hospital wards etc. They say self ID doesn't stop these spaces being provided it just means anybody who says they are a woman can access them... because legally you won't be able to deny them access.

So single sex spaces are now mixed sex spaces....

Again, it's the cart before the horse. Let's reduce the need for women only spaces by tackling male violence and misogyny first.

They also say that single sex spaces don't matter much because most violence towards women is done at home by people they know. What strange logic. You don't abandon safeguarding everywhere just because one environment is more dangerous than others.

This is just after an initial quick read. It's basically a demand for self-ID in all circumstances. They acknowledge this might cause problems for some women, like those in prison, but guess what? Those girls and women's feelings don't matter as much as those who want to self identify as a different sex, or no sex at all....

 

[theclaud]

Gobbledygook personified!

 

[mudsticks]

Thanks for the link..
And gw soonest.

👍🏼💃🌾🌱💪🏼

 

[theclaud]

I haven't read the whole thing yet

It shows, TBH. It doesn't say what you claim above. It isn't a campaign for self-ID into existing legal categories - it's looking at the whole legal framework applicable to sex and gender and asking if a different framework would be better - not only for transgender people's access to services but for helping to dismantle the entire apparatus of gendered socialization. Or, as you put it, 'tell kids they can do/be whatever they want, regardless of their sex.' You claimed recently that you were in favour of abolishing gender. If that's true, this should be of interest to you.

Our research approached gender as a
complex social phenomenon that produces and organises the categories of women and men, and feminine and masculine, to shape the lives of people, laws, rules, systems of exchange, interactions, and other processes in ways that create difference and inequality.

 Forget for a minute, if you can, about the demands or approach of Stonewall etc, which are about access and categorization within the existing legal framework, where we have two pieces of symbolically important legislation which are both arguably flawed and which don't seem to be working very well together, so two lobbies are each attacking (or seen to be attacking) something important to the other. How do we create an alternative framework?

 

[icowden]

They go on to talk about single sex spaces like prisons, domestic violence refuges, hospital wards etc. They say self ID doesn't stop these spaces being provided it just means anybody who says they are a woman can access them... because legally you won't be able to deny them access.

Whilst that is true, and I agree with you, their justification for that appears to be that for access to many (possibly not all, but they imply most) women only spaces there isn't currently a requirement to be tested for absence of a Y chromosome.

For me, the aspect that isn't covered is that whilst currently a biological male could access single sex spaces for women if they transitioned well and appeared to be female, there is still a legal remedy to stop them doing so if required. If there was no longer a legal definition of sex, that remedy is removed, as anyone is entitled to access any space.

 

[Craig the cyclist]

I have read it, very interesting thank you.

A couple of points though, that you will take as confrontational because you do, but aren't meant to be.

Misogyny. If gender is decertified, how will that sit if an accusation of misogyny is made? Obviously by asserting that, then the person standing accused has been 'gendered', even if they do not wish to be, and may not even identify in such a way. So how then are those situations to be dealt with?

Secondly, male violence to women, similar to the above, how is that to be classified if neither party has a gender assigned to them? Surely some of the campaigns to lessen such violence around at the moment rely on the gender tags being in place. If no-one can be gendered, then how do we know the prevalence of male on female violence?

It is an interesting road ahead.

 

[AuroraSaab]

It shows, TBH. It doesn't say what you claim above. It isn't a campaign for self-ID into existing legal categories - it's looking at the whole legal framework applicable to sex and gender and asking if a different framework would be better - not only for transgender people's access to services but for helping to dismantle the entire apparatus of gendered socialization.

Doesn't it seek to abolish the legal categories? Legally there will be no 'male' and 'female'. A prison could say 'This wing is just for women' but if they tried to enforce that it would be illegal to do so.

How do we create an alternative framework?

Well you get rid of sex discrimination first. Then you can stop recording sex because it will be irrelevant. It's frankly nonsense to imagine that by stopping recording sex on official records it will bring an end to sexism. You are chucking away the rights of millions of women just to appease a small minority. If you can't see sex, you can't see sexism.

Surely if this is going to be legal for sex, it should be legal for age and race? How do you think that would pan out?

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ns-transgender-feminist-case?CMP=share_btn_tw

 

[icowden]

A couple of points though, that you will take as confrontational because you do, but aren't meant to be.

Actually I thought they were both very reasonable.

Misogyny. If gender is decertified, how will that sit if an accusation of misogyny is made? Obviously by asserting that, then the person standing accused has been 'gendered', even if they do not wish to be, and may not even identify in such a way. So how then are those situations to be dealt with?

My reading of this is that the utopian vision is that misogyny is not possible as we will all be unified in gender.

Secondly, male violence to women, similar to the above, how is that to be classified if neither party has a gender assigned to them? Surely some of the campaigns to lessen such violence around at the moment rely on the gender tags being in place. If no-one can be gendered, then how do we know the prevalence of male on female violence?

Again, presumably it all becomes person on person violence.

Once again my concern is that it has no impact for men, but considerable impact for women and the benefits are really only aimed at a very very small portion of the population at the risk of disenfranchising a huge amount of the population.

 

[Ian H]

I haven't read the whole thing yet but on some important points it really is just magical thinking.

The authors propose that self ID (ie I am a man/woman simply because I say I am) will somehow encourage society to do away with stereotypes of masculine and feminine and we will all be free to dress and act how we will like, simply because our sex is no longer recorded on our birth certificates. They say that people who do not conform to stereotypes of male and female, who are 'non binary or gender queer' will be 'free of the penalties' of living outside the M and F categories simply because we no longer record your sex. Wouldn't it be better to tell kids that they can pretty much do/be what they want, regardless of their sex? We can dismantle stereotypes if we put the effort in, we don't have to pretend that sex doesn't matter to do so.

They go on to talk about single sex spaces like prisons, domestic violence refuges, hospital wards etc. They say self ID doesn't stop these spaces being provided it just means anybody who says they are a woman can access them... because legally you won't be able to deny them access.

So single sex spaces are now mixed sex spaces....

View attachment 1512

Again, it's the cart before the horse. Let's reduce the need for women only spaces by tackling male violence and misogyny first.

They also say that single sex spaces don't matter much because most violence towards women is done at home by people they know. What strange logic. You don't abandon safeguarding everywhere just because one environment is more dangerous than others.

This is just after an initial quick read. It's basically a demand for self-ID in all circumstances. They acknowledge this might cause problems for some women, like those in prison, but guess what? Those girls and women's feelings don't matter as much as those who want to self identify as a different sex, or no sex at all....

Even on a skim-read, it's rather more nuanced than that. E.g:-
Self-identification, however, does
not have to mean that people can claim the benefits
arising from membership in a disadvantaged class
simply by saying they are a member, for instance, in
the case of admission onto an all-women shortlist for
selecting parliamentary candidates.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

Does this research answers one important question? Namely how many people suffer from gender dystopia, because if you listen to the trans-activist you get all kind of crazy numbers, but no facts to back it up.
Whilst i agree they should be able to be who they want to be it sounds a bit silly to abolish all gender profiles for a so far i have seen/read research about this topic very small group of people suffering from this condition. It sounds a bit like creating an bigger issue to solve a smaller one.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Even on a skim-read, it's rather more nuanced than that. E.g:-
Self-identification, however, does
not have to mean that people can claim the benefits
arising from membership in a disadvantaged class
simply by saying they are a member, for instance, in
the case of admission onto an all-women shortlist for
selecting parliamentary candidates.

How are you going to stop them if the legal categories of 'male' and 'female' have been done away with? On what legal basis would you be able to exclude them if 'sex' is no longer a protected characteristic under the Equality Act? And there can be no protected characteristics (whether sex, age, disability etc) if anybody can opt in and out of the categories at will.

 

[Ian H]

How are you going to stop them if the legal categories of 'male' and 'female' have been done away with? On what legal basis would you be able to exclude them if 'sex' is no longer a protected characteristic under the Equality Act? And there can be no protected characteristics (whether sex, age, disability etc) if anybody can opt in and out of the categories at will.

I presume you'd follow some or all of the various suggestions in the report.