#radfems do touch
Knowing that there are quite a lot of children on that subreddit makes this meme even more disturbing tbh. No idea why they couldn’t have a button titled “therapy and self-love”.
liberal feminism has fooled women and girls into believing that their oppression is empowering.
sex is biological. gender is ideological.
claiming that penetration is normal or supposed to happen because girls and women have vaginas is rape apology. it is implying that the female body is made to be raped, that its anatomy is justification for sexual violence.
radical feminism is wanting the female sex to be fully liberated from male supremacy and eliminating its oppression instead of romanticizing it.
throwback to my awakening, autumn 2019.
it is an insult to women all over the world and throughout history to suggest they are oppressed because of gender identity. no one rapes someone’s gender identity. they rape and oppress based on biological sex. to contest this is ludicrous.
rapists belong in gas chambers
i realized that radfems do not oppose sex positivity, they simply have their own version of it. that is why i do not feel like i belong anymore. i was triggered and insulted many times. i feel so misunderstood, offended, invisible and left behind because of my views on sexuality that i do not want anything to do with feminism anymore. i thought i had finally found something i belonged to, but i was wrong. so so so wrong.
what if i told you that you can not exclude people from movements and spaces which were never meant for them to begin with?
right-wing men abuse women and call it natural hierarchy.
left-wing men abuse women and call it sexual freedom.
What really irks me about TERFs and their concept of bio-essentialism is like: your views are just as bad as the patriarchal and systemic views of intersex people, which is so counterintuitive to their position as feminists.
If your stance on “"womanhood”“ is reliant on what part you have between your legs and it’s function you are literally just parroting the "woman are inherently different than men for biological reasons” that the system has been feeding you that you I would assume oppose.
Women ARE inherently different than men for biological reasons.
Women are physically weaker on average than men and the female reproductive system is designed to give birth. These two biological realities made women both easy to overpower, and the only way to create more men.
Feminine gender standards are designed to make women believe they are lesser and that their worth is determined by how sexually submissive and available they are to men or by how many children (especially sons) they can provide for men.
Femininity literally would not exist if women were just as strong as men, or if men could birth their own children.
That is why womanhood is not a gender identity. Womanhood is the state of being part of the oppressed sex, a person whose body parts make them easier to turn into profitable human property. Without feminine gender being imposed upon us, without men controlling, beating, raping, and killing us, we can be every bit as successful and capable as men are allowed to be.
This is why sex matters and gender should be abolished. Sex is the body, gender is the chains.
Well, it was only a matter of time. On May 4th our minister of Law introduced a bill on behalf of our minister of Emancipation (the irony is painful), proposing to simply the procedure to change the gender on your birth certificate. A declaration by a licensed doctor or psychologist will no longer be required. Instead, someone will be able to file in writing to have their legal sex changed. Four to twelve weeks later they will receive confirmation.
Furthermore, the minimum age requirement of 16 years to have your gender legally changed will be dropped as well. Children younger than 16 will be able to change their gender if they get permission from a judge.
The impact of this on women’s rights, safety and well-being has not been considered. At all. The Council of State reviewed the proposed bill and only requested clarification on the justification for dropping the age requirement, and whether the weight of the decision for the individual is properly safeguarded when a professional no longer has to be involved.
Answer to 1: sometimes children under 16 are clear about their “gender” being “set”, so not being able to have their birth certificate changed yet is “difficult.
Answer to 2: this decision is up to the individual and the government should be involved as little as possible. Right of self-determination is the most important.The Council of State agreed to these “justifications” and is now fine with this bill, which will now be debated in the House of Representatives. Again: no consideration at all for the impact on women. Maybe because women have already lost their legal protection to begin with. Unlike the U.K. and the U.S., the Netherlands do not list sex as a protected characteristic. Instead they’ve used gender (geslacht), and a few years ago they changed the law to add that gender identity and gender expression fall under the protected category of gender. So excluding a man with a womanly identity, or even expression, from female-only spaces is already forbidden.
@girlsfrommars@dutchradfem Sorry about the blunt @, but since you’re one of the few Dutch radfems on here, I thought you might want to know this. The proposed bill can be found here. I fear there is very little hope stopping this. So far the Netherlands ignore the more critical stances that have risen up in the UK and Sweden. And unlike the UK, we do not have any feminist organizations that haven’t been hijacked by liberal feminism and trans activism, except for Voorzijand they are very small.
Update:because Sander Dekker, our (still under resignation, by the way) minister for Law Protection is a useless ass, this bill is still underway without any precautions taken to protect the safety and dignity of women and girls.
All concerns about the potential for abuse have been hand waved away with “We Don’t Think That Will Happen”. Despite the fact that those exact things are already happening abroad. Cases from the UK, Canada and the USA are conveniently ignored. Instead, Dekker defers to an investigation into self-ID in Argentina, Norway, Ireland and Malta, which concluded that Nothing Ever Happened. If anyone does have examples about trans abuse in those countries, I would love to hear them. I am aware of the number of female rapists in Norway increasing with 300% between 2015 and 2017, with self-ID being introduced in 2016, and of Barbie Kardashian in Ireland. Is there anything else known?
Apparently there was another vote on whether to mark this bill as “controversial” and postpone it, because the Netherlands still do not have a new government after elections early this year. But of course legalizing voyeurism and exhibitionism in women’s changing rooms and making all sex-based statistics unreliable and meaningless is still not deemed controversial, so on we go. The bill is now scheduled to be discussed in the House of Representatives on the 24th of January.
@womenfrommarsfyi.
Well, it was only a matter of time. On May 4th our minister of Law introduced a bill on behalf of our minister of Emancipation (the irony is painful), proposing to simply the procedure to change the gender on your birth certificate. A declaration by a licensed doctor or psychologist will no longer be required. Instead, someone will be able to file in writing to have their legal sex changed. Four to twelve weeks later they will receive confirmation.
Furthermore, the minimum age requirement of 16 years to have your gender legally changed will be dropped as well. Children younger than 16 will be able to change their gender if they get permission from a judge.
The impact of this on women’s rights, safety and well-being has not been considered. At all. The Council of State reviewed the proposed bill and only requested clarification on the justification for dropping the age requirement, and whether the weight of the decision for the individual is properly safeguarded when a professional no longer has to be involved.
Answer to 1: sometimes children under 16 are clear about their “gender” being “set”, so not being able to have their birth certificate changed yet is “difficult.
Answer to 2: this decision is up to the individual and the government should be involved as little as possible. Right of self-determination is the most important.The Council of State agreed to these “justifications” and is now fine with this bill, which will now be debated in the House of Representatives. Again: no consideration at all for the impact on women. Maybe because women have already lost their legal protection to begin with. Unlike the U.K. and the U.S., the Netherlands do not list sex as a protected characteristic. Instead they’ve used gender (geslacht), and a few years ago they changed the law to add that gender identity and gender expression fall under the protected category of gender. So excluding a man with a womanly identity, or even expression, from female-only spaces is already forbidden.
@girlsfrommars@dutchradfem Sorry about the blunt @, but since you’re one of the few Dutch radfems on here, I thought you might want to know this. The proposed bill can be found here. I fear there is very little hope stopping this. So far the Netherlands ignore the more critical stances that have risen up in the UK and Sweden. And unlike the UK, we do not have any feminist organizations that haven’t been hijacked by liberal feminism and trans activism, except for Voorzijand they are very small.
I had no idea this was even going on because all the political news is about Corona virus. I am lost for words honestly. I am a law student but we were always taught that ‘’geslacht’’ legally speaking referred to sex. It’s in article 1 of the Constitution. So we’re supposed to believe this refers to ‘’gender identity’’ even though other grounds of discrimination (sexual orientation, disability) are not even mentioned explicitly but are covered implicitly? I have heard of Voorzij and I am following them on Twitter but Jesus Christ I had no idea the situation was this urgent
Just like everywhere else, all this legislation is ushered through pretty quietly. Late last year they also came with a proposal to add sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and gender characteristics (as in intersex) as protected characteristics against hate speech and group defamation, while gender/sex remains excluded. So by that logic an offensive statement about TIMs will become punishable hate speech while that same statement about women will not.
You can see here (Arikel 1, punt 2) that gender identity and expression are listed as being encompassed by the category gender. I believe they were added in 2018. By the way, hetero- and homosexual orientation have recently been added too.
Based on this, the College voor de Rechten van de Mens has already ruled twice in favor of TIMs: a women-only gym was not allowed to ban a TIM with penis from becoming a member, and a TIM at school could not be denied access to the women’s bathrooms, despite being offered a neutral single stall and female students’ complaints that they felt uncomfortable with his presence.
I know the College voor de Rechten van de Mens does not offer any binding decisions but their decisions are held in high regard by other institutions, including government institutions, so this quite worrying. A human rights court can consider the ‘’rights’’ of men but not the rights of women
I don’t even know what ‘’gender expression’’ is supposed to be mean. Firing a man because he’s feminine would already be illegal considering it counts as sexism. So you’re allowed to fire him, but only if he ‘’identifies’’ as male?
I had no idea the woke gender ideology had set foot here as well, I’d always assumed it wasn’t as bad as in Canada or something. The again, I think the government recently apologised to the transgender community because back in the day they’d require some form of surgery to be able to change your legal gender, which transgenders perceive as ‘’forced sterilisation’’ (lmao as if)
Exactly, and with the explicit inclusion of gender identity and expression as aspects of “geslacht” in the Constitution, the odds don’t seem too great of a real court ruling in women’s favor to exclude men. A woman contacted the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science about the ruling on the women’s toilets in school and asked whether female students still had a right to single-sex facilities in schools. The answer was no, because excluding “trans women” from women’s facilities is now discrimination. The representative even went so far as to say that maybe it would “take some getting used to to encountering women with “manly” characteristics” in these spaces. And dragged up claims about trans people’s increased risk of suffering violence as justification. Again: safety was not a concern for this trans student, as he was offered the use of a single stall, but that was not good enough for him. It were the female students who felt uncomfortable and unsafe, but they will just have to suck it up and get used to it.
They’re hardly defining those terms. The proposed hate speech has the same issue with the terms not being properly defined. Plus in that one they want to use “seksuele gerichtheid” as protected characteristic instead of heterosexual and homosexual orientation. They claim that that Dutch term is a more accurate translation of the more commonly used “sexual orientation” in other languages, but somehow this Dutch phrasing seems much more open to include all manners of fetishes and kinks. They’re aware of some of the danger in that, because they did add the restriction that the sexual orientation in question should not be illegal, so they don’t inadvertently end up making pedophilia and bestiality protected. But no definition beyond that, probably so they won’t exclude any of the ever-growing number of sexual orientations. I also wonder whether gender expression can be used to say that a man wearing makeup or something has a “womanly” gender expression and should have access to women’s facilities on those grounds. I surely hope that kind of reasoning is still a bridge too far.
We might not be quite up to Canada’s level yet but we’re sure following its shiny example. Plans to ban conversion therapy, under which they include therapy for trans people to help them come to terms with their biological sex, are in the works as well, so it looks like it won’t be long until we have the full set. Almost every political party supports all of this. Only the SGP takes a firm stance against it, and occasionally ChristenUnie and Forum voor Democratie raise more critical questions too. Obviously those first two parties repel non-religious/non-christian voters and the latter repels for… different reasons. :’) Everything more on the Left and everything more progressive is on board and refuses to even engage in conversation about this.
Yup, you got that right. Not only did the government apologize for this “forced sterilisation”, I believe they also suggested people who underwent these surgeries might receive financial compensation. It’s wild. Being able to legally change your gender used to be a sort of accommodation for people who underwent these surgeries. Now things have gotten switched around and changing legal gender has become a goal in itself, and the surgeries a “mandatory” barrier to that goal.
Update on the decision on June 9th: they’ve declared the issue “not controversial”, so they will go ahead and discuss the matter soon, regardless of progress (or lack thereof) in government formation.
@girlsfrommars Looks like you have till 8th of July to send input.
Well, it was only a matter of time. On May 4th our minister of Law introduced a bill on behalf of our minister of Emancipation (the irony is painful), proposing to simply the procedure to change the gender on your birth certificate. A declaration by a licensed doctor or psychologist will no longer be required. Instead, someone will be able to file in writing to have their legal sex changed. Four to twelve weeks later they will receive confirmation.
Furthermore, the minimum age requirement of 16 years to have your gender legally changed will be dropped as well. Children younger than 16 will be able to change their gender if they get permission from a judge.
The impact of this on women’s rights, safety and well-being has not been considered. At all. The Council of State reviewed the proposed bill and only requested clarification on the justification for dropping the age requirement, and whether the weight of the decision for the individual is properly safeguarded when a professional no longer has to be involved.
Answer to 1: sometimes children under 16 are clear about their “gender” being “set”, so not being able to have their birth certificate changed yet is “difficult.
Answer to 2: this decision is up to the individual and the government should be involved as little as possible. Right of self-determination is the most important.The Council of State agreed to these “justifications” and is now fine with this bill, which will now be debated in the House of Representatives. Again: no consideration at all for the impact on women. Maybe because women have already lost their legal protection to begin with. Unlike the U.K. and the U.S., the Netherlands do not list sex as a protected characteristic. Instead they’ve used gender (geslacht), and a few years ago they changed the law to add that gender identity and gender expression fall under the protected category of gender. So excluding a man with a womanly identity, or even expression, from female-only spaces is already forbidden.
@girlsfrommars@dutchradfem Sorry about the blunt @, but since you’re one of the few Dutch radfems on here, I thought you might want to know this. The proposed bill can be found here. I fear there is very little hope stopping this. So far the Netherlands ignore the more critical stances that have risen up in the UK and Sweden. And unlike the UK, we do not have any feminist organizations that haven’t been hijacked by liberal feminism and trans activism, except for Voorzijand they are very small.
I had no idea this was even going on because all the political news is about Corona virus. I am lost for words honestly. I am a law student but we were always taught that ‘’geslacht’’ legally speaking referred to sex. It’s in article 1 of the Constitution. So we’re supposed to believe this refers to ‘’gender identity’’ even though other grounds of discrimination (sexual orientation, disability) are not even mentioned explicitly but are covered implicitly? I have heard of Voorzij and I am following them on Twitter but Jesus Christ I had no idea the situation was this urgent
Just like everywhere else, all this legislation is ushered through pretty quietly. Late last year they also came with a proposal to add sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and gender characteristics (as in intersex) as protected characteristics against hate speech and group defamation, while gender/sex remains excluded. So by that logic an offensive statement about TIMs will become punishable hate speech while that same statement about women will not.
You can see here (Arikel 1, punt 2) that gender identity and expression are listed as being encompassed by the category gender. I believe they were added in 2018. By the way, hetero- and homosexual orientation have recently been added too.
Based on this, the College voor de Rechten van de Mens has already ruled twice in favor of TIMs: a women-only gym was not allowed to ban a TIM with penis from becoming a member, and a TIM at school could not be denied access to the women’s bathrooms, despite being offered a neutral single stall and female students’ complaints that they felt uncomfortable with his presence.
I know the College voor de Rechten van de Mens does not offer any binding decisions but their decisions are held in high regard by other institutions, including government institutions, so this quite worrying. A human rights court can consider the ‘’rights’’ of men but not the rights of women
I don’t even know what ‘’gender expression’’ is supposed to be mean. Firing a man because he’s feminine would already be illegal considering it counts as sexism. So you’re allowed to fire him, but only if he ‘’identifies’’ as male?
I had no idea the woke gender ideology had set foot here as well, I’d always assumed it wasn’t as bad as in Canada or something. The again, I think the government recently apologised to the transgender community because back in the day they’d require some form of surgery to be able to change your legal gender, which transgenders perceive as ‘’forced sterilisation’’ (lmao as if)
Exactly, and with the explicit inclusion of gender identity and expression as aspects of “geslacht” in the Constitution, the odds don’t seem too great of a real court ruling in women’s favor to exclude men. A woman contacted the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science about the ruling on the women’s toilets in school and asked whether female students still had a right to single-sex facilities in schools. The answer was no, because excluding “trans women” from women’s facilities is now discrimination. The representative even went so far as to say that maybe it would “take some getting used to to encountering women with “manly” characteristics” in these spaces. And dragged up claims about trans people’s increased risk of suffering violence as justification. Again: safety was not a concern for this trans student, as he was offered the use of a single stall, but that was not good enough for him. It were the female students who felt uncomfortable and unsafe, but they will just have to suck it up and get used to it.
They’re hardly defining those terms. The proposed hate speech has the same issue with the terms not being properly defined. Plus in that one they want to use “seksuele gerichtheid” as protected characteristic instead of heterosexual and homosexual orientation. They claim that that Dutch term is a more accurate translation of the more commonly used “sexual orientation” in other languages, but somehow this Dutch phrasing seems much more open to include all manners of fetishes and kinks. They’re aware of some of the danger in that, because they did add the restriction that the sexual orientation in question should not be illegal, so they don’t inadvertently end up making pedophilia and bestiality protected. But no definition beyond that, probably so they won’t exclude any of the ever-growing number of sexual orientations. I also wonder whether gender expression can be used to say that a man wearing makeup or something has a “womanly” gender expression and should have access to women’s facilities on those grounds. I surely hope that kind of reasoning is still a bridge too far.
We might not be quite up to Canada’s level yet but we’re sure following its shiny example. Plans to ban conversion therapy, under which they include therapy for trans people to help them come to terms with their biological sex, are in the works as well, so it looks like it won’t be long until we have the full set. Almost every political party supports all of this. Only the SGP takes a firm stance against it, and occasionally ChristenUnie and Forum voor Democratie raise more critical questions too. Obviously those first two parties repel non-religious/non-christian voters and the latter repels for… different reasons. :’) Everything more on the Left and everything more progressive is on board and refuses to even engage in conversation about this.
Yup, you got that right. Not only did the government apologize for this “forced sterilisation”, I believe they also suggested people who underwent these surgeries might receive financial compensation. It’s wild. Being able to legally change your gender used to be a sort of accommodation for people who underwent these surgeries. Now things have gotten switched around and changing legal gender has become a goal in itself, and the surgeries a “mandatory” barrier to that goal.
The law is supposed to be neutral but it obviously places transgenders’ feelings above women’s feelings if these self-identification laws are taken to the extreme. Somehow trans women being in men’s changing rooms is dangerous for them, but the idea of men falsely identifying as trans women and endangering women is never considered. If the concern were safety, they’d feel happy about a third, neutral space.
I feel like ‘’seksuele gerichtheid’’ and ‘’seksuele geaardheid/orientatie’’ mean the same thing whereas homosexual and heterosexual orientation exclude bisexuality as a third potential cause for discrimination. I’m not sure if anyone has ever been discriminated against for being attracted to both sexes at the same time specifically (rather than a bisexual facing discrimination due to their same-sex attraction alone) but it’s a theoretical possibility. I believe ‘’biphobia’’ has a better chance of existing than ‘’heterophobia’’, to put it bluntly. If the law mentions heterosexuality, it should also mention bisexuality. Strange how that’s overlooked but we’ve got three different terms for gender identity.
The ChristianUnion is technically a left-wing party except it doesn’t have a reputation of being progressive. Not surprising that SGP is against it considering they want to legally outlaw gay marriage again, as well as gay adopting, therefore presumably taking away children from gay and lesbian couples (they never mention this but it would be the logical outcome of their proposed plans). Baudet recently announced an essay contest on Twitter and encouraged people to think about what homosexuality exactly is, thus implying he’s not sure if it’s an orientation, a mental illness, or something else, and he also implied the woke crowd is turning all the kids gay? So we don’t have much of an opposition going on.
I don’t know if you know this but in the European Council (not the EU) it is mandatory that States give people the opportunity to change their legal gender, but they’re free to determine the conditions. This has been the case ever since a case called Goodwin vs. UK. This case was from 2002 (thanks, Google), therefore the Dutch State is obliged to allow legal gender changes. Even Russia allows it for this reason (although in Russia it is much more difficult because like I said, States are free to determine the conditions still). Gay marriage though? Nooooo that’s fine for States to outlaw hahaha the cis gays are oppressing all the trans though!!!!!!!!
I think that “seksuele geaardheid” implies a more innate sexuality rather than whatever paraphilia might turn you on, but I suppose that’s just splitting hairs at this point. With the current, very broad interpretation of sexuality both terms will probably be interpreted as encompassing way more than hetero-, homo- and bisexuality. I do agree that heterosexual orientation never needed to be explicitly mentioned as protected under the Constitution. Obviously you won’t be discriminated against for being heterosexual in the Netherlands, or anywhere else. There are some prejudices and biases against bi people in particular but I can’t really think of a scenario where they’d be grounds for a discrimination case. Bi women experience higher rates of domestic violence for instance, but it’s hard to argue that this is discrimination. Like you said, it’s the same-sex attraction part that’s far more likely to face discrimination. I do believe homosexual orientation should remain an explicitly mentioned protected category. We already have people calling lesbians scary vagina fetishists for excluding TIMs from their dating pool here as well. With a vague, muddled interpretation of sexual orientation I fear that protection of gay and lesbian people might be further eroded.
Yeah, SGP really is a case where the trans-critical stance is connected to anti-gay. They’re against outlawing actual conversion therapy for gay people as well. And of course they’re fiercely anti-abortion. It’s really ironic that what used to be the most anti-women party is the only one left who still knows what a woman is. On some other issues they even align more with radfem stances than other parties who claim to be pro-emancipation: they want to introduce the Nordic Model for prostitution and are against surrogacy (side-track: a lot of parties mentioned intent to introduce more lenient rules for surrogacy in their election program, VVD even wants to allow commercial surrogacy). They and the ChristenUnie are also the only ones asking for more research into the sharp rise among teen girls who want to transition, and the only one pleading for more support for detransitioners. But saying you’ve got the SGP and Baudet on your side is more likely to repel people who aren’t in either of those corners, so it’s hardly a ringing endorsement indeed… That also makes it easier for the other parties to dismiss them. Which is why things are looking bleak.
I did not know that about the European Council. The EU is getting more involved as well though. They’ve expressed plans to criminalize hate speech (including criticizing gender ideology) and again consider therapy for trans-identifying people conversion therapy that should be phased out of existence. Psh, women and gay people can be thrown under the bus. COC, which used to be the most prominent Dutch organization for LGB emancipation, is dipping their toes in with classic conversion therapy themselves. They advised a gay man who struggled with his homosexuality to transition to a woman (mentioned in this report). That way he could have heterosexual relationships. Problem solved! Taking inspiration from Iran much?
Bonus: you haven’t missed that we’ve got our own first TIM in the House of Representatives now, have you (courtesy to D66)? He’s also the chair of trans lobby organization Transvisie. Turns out he kept a blog between 2012 and 2017 about his “trans journey”. He has since deleted it, but the internet doesn’t forget. You don’t need to delve deep into it for the autogynephilia to become obvious. February 2012 already has a post in which he wrote about masturbating in the bathroom when visiting friends in women’s clothes for the first time…
Update on the current status of the proposed bill: on June 9th the House of Representatives will decide whether the topic is deemed “controversial” and will be discussed at a later date. This is because we don’t have an official new government after elections yet. The numbers of seats each party has earned in the House of Representatives is already known, but they have yet to come to an agreement between parties to reach a coalition that forms a majority and will make it easier/feasible for them to rule and pass laws. A proposed bill on banning LGBTI (yes, all those letters) conversion therapy has already been classified as controversial and postponed. However, because that bill already has a majority of support, some parties are trying to go ahead and still get it pushed through soon.
As for the self-id bill, seems like they’ve sneaked even more into that one. There is now mention of assigning a curator if a child under the age of 16 wants to change their legal gender registration but their parents/guardians do not agree. The curator can then decide “in the best interests of the child”. So parents who try to prevent their child from transitioning could soon be overruled by the State. This was a suggestion made by a trans lobby group, Transgender Netwerk Nederland, and apparently one our government intends to adopt.
They’ve also noted that they received a lot of responses from citizens about this proposed bill, and that those were split pretty evenly between supportive and critical. The justification for ignoring the critical half? “The step to make the inner conviction of the transgender person leading in the choice to change the gender registration has already been made in previous legislation. This proposed bill does not bring about any change in that regard.” So because they had already opened the door to a crack before, might now as well remove the bolts and swing it wide open. Makes no difference, surely. They still refuse to take concerns about the spike of referrals in young girls to gender clinics seriously either and will not start an investigation into that phenomenon.
@girlsfrommars Tagging you for the update. If you don’t want me to do that anymore, just let me know. The agenda for June 9th can be found here. It’s item 5 on the list. The attachments contain what looks like the more formal proposal of the bill and an addition (Memorie van toelichting) with clarifications. In the addition they mention the reactions they received and why they see no problem whatsoever in dismissing concerns. Interestingly, the curator thing is only mentioned in this addition too and not the actual bill proposal. I don’t know how normal that is though? It does feel very sneaky.
Well, it was only a matter of time. On May 4th our minister of Law introduced a bill on behalf of our minister of Emancipation (the irony is painful), proposing to simply the procedure to change the gender on your birth certificate. A declaration by a licensed doctor or psychologist will no longer be required. Instead, someone will be able to file in writing to have their legal sex changed. Four to twelve weeks later they will receive confirmation.
Furthermore, the minimum age requirement of 16 years to have your gender legally changed will be dropped as well. Children younger than 16 will be able to change their gender if they get permission from a judge.
The impact of this on women’s rights, safety and well-being has not been considered. At all. The Council of State reviewed the proposed bill and only requested clarification on the justification for dropping the age requirement, and whether the weight of the decision for the individual is properly safeguarded when a professional no longer has to be involved.
Answer to 1: sometimes children under 16 are clear about their “gender” being “set”, so not being able to have their birth certificate changed yet is “difficult.
Answer to 2: this decision is up to the individual and the government should be involved as little as possible. Right of self-determination is the most important.
The Council of State agreed to these “justifications” and is now fine with this bill, which will now be debated in the House of Representatives. Again: no consideration at all for the impact on women. Maybe because women have already lost their legal protection to begin with. Unlike the U.K. and the U.S., the Netherlands do not list sex as a protected characteristic. Instead they’ve used gender (geslacht), and a few years ago they changed the law to add that gender identity and gender expression fall under the protected category of gender. So excluding a man with a womanly identity, or even expression, from female-only spaces is already forbidden.
@girlsfrommars@dutchradfem Sorry about the blunt @, but since you’re one of the few Dutch radfems on here, I thought you might want to know this. The proposed bill can be found here. I fear there is very little hope stopping this. So far the Netherlands ignore the more critical stances that have risen up in the UK and Sweden. And unlike the UK, we do not have any feminist organizations that haven’t been hijacked by liberal feminism and trans activism, except for Voorzijand they are very small.
Hi all,
I’m really pleased to announce that the process of organising meetings outside of London has been successful so far. So, if you are a radical/rad-aligned/gender critical feminist, anywhere in the UK, who is interested in meeting other rad etc women (adult only) in real life, please message me.
Also, if you are based in or around London/the South East, and would be interested in meeting other rad etc women in a WOC-specific group, and/or and LGB-specific group, please get in touch too.
Getting offline, building communities, and talking to each other is the first step to change.
Looking forward to hearing from you all!
Hi all,
If you are a rad-aligned woman, interested in meeting other tumblr feminists irl, and you are based in or near any of the cities listed below, please get in touch!
OXFORD, ENGLAND
BRISTOL, ENGLAND
BIRMINGHAM, ENGLAND
MANCHESTER, ENGLAND
EDINBURGH, SCOTLAND
