PEEENIS LAW /  by TooLong Dead

Well I've been a woman for many a year
And there's no dumbass MAN-TRAs that wash around here
They say men are women if woman he thinks
They say it's a feeling and what they say stinks


And it's
NO NAY NEVER [drum it: women won't wheeesht!]
NO NAY NEVER NO MORE
THERE'S NO WAY WE'LL ROLLOVER
FOR MEN'S PEEEENIS LAWS

We know the mansplainers & spreaders too well
But ya man's madness now's beyond testerical

By stealth and by wallet they put it in law
Those penises put it in schoolrooms and more


Well it's ...
NO NAY NEVER [drum it: women won't wheeesht!]
NO NAY NEVER NO MORE
THERE'S NO WAY WE'LL ROLLOVER
FOR MEN'S PEEEENIS LAWS

We told all who'd listen: we'll never relent
We appealed to their honours for reason & sense
The judge saw their madness right there in the court
But they erred in their judgment cos the penis is law

BUT it's
NO NAY NEVER [drum it: women won't wheeesht!]
NO NAY NEVER NO MORE
THERE'S NO WAY WE'LL ROLLOVER
FOR MEN'S PEEEENIS LAWS


The eejits kept shoving, but no more will we give
To be sure they'll regret that they came for our kids
No man is a woman no woman's a man
YOU KNOW WOMEN WON'T WHEESHT! AND TOGETHER WE STAND!

YES it's ...
NO NAY NEVER [drum it: women won't wheeesht!]
NO NAY NEVER NO MORE
THERE'S NO WAY WE'LL ROLLOVER
FOR MEN'S PEEEENIS LAWS

Nighttime ... Daytime! /  by TooLong Dead

Some understand the joy of imagination as well as the Nighttime Daytime Bird (from the BBC Animal Talking Animals). And replay. And again. And again. And … sure, fine, go play your fucking xbox instead.

'Toad the wet Sprocket'https://twitter.com/#!/NTDTwotws-BBC Walk On The Wild SideFollow me on Twitter: @NTDTwotwsNIGHTTIME DAYTIME BIRD.

Sex and gender: The Consequences of Conflation /  by TooLong Dead

*Part 2 of 2 - read part 1: ‘Countering Harmful Narratives’ here

** for more informed/stimulating/referenced discussion read:
Kathleen Stock / Jane Clare Jones / Maya Forstater

The systemic conflation of the words sex (i.e. definition: male or female) and gender (stereotypical characteristics of males or female) has undermined practice, policy & discussion of issues affecting women's rights and sex-based protections.

Gender stereotypes have long been the justification for sexist law and sexist cultural norms. Women's equality began fighting these stereotypes which underpinned the idea that women were intellectually lesser than men, naturally subordinates to men, inherently the property of men. These culturally perpetuated stereotypes and the consequent impact in legal, medical and social life persist but without clear vocabulary are obscured beyond the scope measured dialogue and debate.


Policy and Law

The readiness of authorities, organisations and companies to expand definitions of mutually exclusive categories (male or female / man or woman) to each become inclusive of their binary renders these most common and necessary terms incomprehensible. Further, use of the words woman or man which does not recognise 'self-identified women/men' as included in these categories is now deemed 'hate speech' which can and already has resulted in professional, financial and legal sanctions.

Where governments, authorities and organisations approve, support, promote or endorse interchangeable, optional or self-identified uses of the words sex and gender the meaning of each word must first (though, now, retrospectively by necessity) be clearly and rigorously defined. These clear and rigorous definitions must involve robust analysis of historic and continued gender stereotypes and the impacts of these gender stereotypes in terms of health, prospects and autonomy.


Definitions & Meaning

There has been a relentless campaign and, simultaneously, an inadvertent slide to replace/supersede sex (i.e. definition: male or female) with gender (stereotypical characteristics of males or females) in official policy and practice resulting in the words being used interchangeably.

Regardless of intention, this conflation of the terms sex and gender prevents any clear, robust discussion and understanding of any issue where the distinction is not only important but essential.

If the meaning of male/female is defined by gender stereotypes it ceases to define biological sex. If the meaning of male/female is defined by biological sex it cannot be determined by gender stereotypes.

Crucially:

If is accepted that the words woman and man define people with (often robustly contested and debunked, historically changeable and rooted in misogyny) stereotyped social performance of males or females (i.e. gender: masculinity/femininity) then, by definition, all those who do not conform to or perform these stereotypes no longer belong to their categories male or female.

If female/woman is no longer to be defined by primary and secondary sex characteristics but instead as a feeling (i.e. a person 'feels like a woman') there must be rigorous analysis of what that feeling is, what informs that feeling and whether it could be said to be common to all women as primary and secondary sex characteristics are.

If male/man is no longer to be defined by primary and secondary sex characteristics but instead as a feeling (i.e. a person 'feels like a man') there must be rigorous analysis of what that feeling is, what informs that feeling and whether it could be said to be common to all men as primary and secondary sex characteristics are.

The current criteria (ALL CONTESTED) for 'feeling like a woman/man' include:

clothing preference

active interests

sexual preference

intellectual interests

emotional profile

behavioural profile

'INNATE INTERNAL FEELING'


Treatment Models & Medicalisation

The affirmation model, for people whose bodies represent to them a deep psycho-social dysphoria, reinforces this fiction, deepening rather than treating the causes of dysphoria. This medicalisation of individuals - with affirmations, medications and surgery - does not treat but instead exacerbates dysphoria, leading dysphoric people to further internalise gender non-conformity as 'being in the wrong body'.

Rights & Protections

Discrimination based on a person's gender expression is and should continue to be unlawful. There is no need to falsely assert a person's sex has changed in order to protect their freedom of (gender) expression.

Human sex does not change – this, where it is asserted, is always a legal fiction and the consequences and ramifications of this fiction are far more serious and pervasive than lawmakers intended. A shift of emphasis is needed away from this fiction, away from denial of (biological) sex and towards freedom of (gender) expression for any person of either sex with continuing legal protections for any person discriminated against on the basis of sex.

Where existing sex based protections have been eroded, breached, removed or replaced in line with what is called 'gender identity policy' these protections should be reasserted and reinforced. Existing protections based on a person's sex:

  • must remain lawful

  • must be recommended practice

In the Name of Progress

The increasingly common substitution and conflation of the word sex with the word gender has contributed to the continued disadvantage of women and introduced new infringements on women's hard fought sex based protections.

No law should support, facilitate or enshrine demonstrably false beliefs. No law should criminalise open dissent of / non-compliance with demonstrably false beliefs.

Progress is the act of reforming laws, systems and structures which, by design or application, normalise, perpetuate or reinforce demonstrably false and/or discriminatory beliefs.

There is nothing progressive about gender stereotypes.

Sex and gender: Countering Harmful Narratives /  by TooLong Dead

*Part 1 of 2 - read part 2 ‘The Consequences of Conflation’ here

**for more informed/stimulating/referenced discussion read:
Kathleen Stock / Jane Clare Jones / Maya Forstater

You are not more or less female/male because you do not fit into or conform to dated, spurious notions of gender, be they social or emotional or otherwise.

Not fitting into or conforming to the ‘gender roles’ of your sex does not make you a different sex.

Nothing you do, think, feel or wear makes you more/less male.

Nothing you do, think, feel or wear makes you more/less female.


STILL,
Men and boys are told or hear people say they sound, talk, look, act, walk, throw, run, dress, laugh, think, write, dance, nag, cry … like a woman/girl.

Women and girls are told or hear people say they sound, talk, look, act, walk, smell, think, write, eat, dress, shout, climb ... like a man/boy.

^^These regressive attitudes^^ are society’s problem. They represent external, cultural problems. They DO NOT represent an individual’s internal problem.


STILL,
You might have been told or heard people say that being attracted to men makes you a woman or being attracted to women makes you a man.

^^These regressive attitudes^^ are ridiculous and are society’s problem. They represent external, cultural problems. They DO NOT represent an individual’s internal problem.


The people who say these things might be friends, family, neighbours, classmates or colleagues, teachers/employers, doctors/nurses, strangers/loved ones.

They might be calculated or callous, concerned or indifferent, thoughtless or considered, cruel or caring, gentle or vicious.

Their intention might be to exploit or support you, to exclude or understand you, to hurt or help you, to expose or protect you, to attack or defend you, to praise or humiliate you.

They might be people you trust, respect or admire. They might be people who intimidate you or reassure you.

Who they are, why they say this and how often you hear it may (in some cases drastically) change the impact of what you hear though it does not alter the substance.


No clothes, hairstyles make you more/less female/male. No emotions make you more/less female/male. No posture, shape or size makes you more/less female/male. No-one is more/less female/male because of who they are attracted to. No-one is more/less female/male because of who they spend time with socially.


Those who have experienced social exclusion, verbal attacks, physical assaults on the basis of gender non-conformity might well feel ill at ease with their sex.

This is both compounded and driven by regressive messaging and marketed images of women and men who typify these gender-conforming characteristics, forms and roles in a hyper-nomalisation of altered-image norms.

People individualising / internalising issues with gender non-conformity is a result of regressive ideology being spread, endorsed and substantiated where it should be challenged, exposed, and refuted.

The beliefs underpinning 'gender identity ideology' are inseparable from the beliefs underpinning misogyny and homophobia. They assert that instead of bodies it is our conformity to stereotypes of 'femininity' or 'masculinity' that determine whether a person is male or female.

It is neither kind nor reasonable to affirm or acquiesce to falsehoods which seek to medicate or medicalise individuals to treat symptoms of cultural oppression.

An Open Letter to Rachel Rooney /  by TooLong Dead

(because sometimes, it’s not just the thought that counts)


Dear Rachel,


We haven't met but I have read your beautiful book and, given the nonsensical attacks I have seen directed at you, am moved not just to think it but to tell you how lovely, compassionate, clear and kind your story's message is and what an important piece of work it is.


Very occasionally, an author writes something so clear, so beautiful, so simple, that you cannot believe it wasn't already written before – this is one of those books and you are that author. Rest assured, it's a timeless and exemplary work of children's literature with, when good sense prevails, a long, beloved and much deserved place in the hearts of children and parents the world over.


It's absurd, utterly absurd, that anyone would object to helping every child to embrace their body. It's beyond all reason, totally bananas (poor bananas – where on earth did that phrase come from!?). That anyone, ever, could read anything other than compassion, clarity and kindness in your celebratory words and pitch perfect tone is a deeply sad reflection of what they've come to believe and what they've been subjected to.


I can't help but see the sad irony in this; many of these very people (and their schools & parents) were, not so far back, the very children who so needed your lovely book to read as they were struggling to accept themselves as they are under the relentless drip of regressive messaging to reject their bodies as 'wrong' for perfectly healthy and natural appearances, interests, characters etc. What a mess this money driven, image obsessed messaging is making of society!

Of course there are others. There are the bullies who simply revel in vicious and unfounded attacks. They are without conscience, though, Rachel - they deserve none of your energy, time or thought. None. Hopefully you can find a way, with friends, humour, whatever works for you, to see this and leave their nastiness with them.


Somehow, for me anyway, more thoughtless and jarring are those, with great reach, who reinforce or support these nonsensical attacks on your work and your character. I find myself shocked, daily, by people I'd expect to know better. It's so disappointing. I guess, in the end, creativity and imagination are simply no measure of a person's critical clarity or personal integrity.


And after what I saw yesterday, I write all of this in the hope these words bring you even a tiny fraction of the comfort your many, many young readers will find in My Body Is Me for many, many years to come.


Sincerely,


Lucy