"cis women" is hard to understand, and is seen as offensive by many women
Its also superfluous since everyone in this category is also in the "female" category.
Lets remove it, since this doesn't exclude any individuals.
Do they really need "anyone who is legally defined as a woman" AND people "of the female sex"
-- these two categories are almost the same population apart from <0.01% of people who have legally changed sex
"anyone who is legally defined as a woman" includes males with a GRC whose birth certificate now says female
But it could exclude females who have a GRC as a male
(although in some cases the law will still consider them women such as still giving a peerage to their brother🤔)
You wouldn't want to exclude that second group because surely their writing reflects the experience of being a woman who legally changes their sex to male.
"The female sex" encompass cis women, women who reject that label or have never heard it, women who identify as non-binary & transmen.
It only leaves out legal women who are biologically male (i.e. transwomen with a GRC), but they are covered by the category "trans women"
OK so now we have edited it down to two categories "transgender women" and "people of the female sex", without excluding any individuals covered by the other categories.
But surely they should be in the other order - the larger group, then the smaller?
And now the problem is quite evident!
There must be a name for "anyone of the female sex" - but what is it?
Since the woman's prize is "broadening the bandwidth" of what a woman is it can't be woman, so I'm going to go with biological woman, since this is an English word that is clearly understandable.
Maybe @womensprize think "biological women" is offensive?
Then we are left with "transgender woman" which they have left undefined.
"Transwoman" or "transgender woman" is not defined in law, so Women's prize will need to come up with their own definition.
- any other legal women (i.e. transwomen with a GRC)
- anyone who identifies as a woman (self identify to the prize submission)
- anyone living as a woman (Women's prize needs to set some criteria)
Could a male novelist with a book published from April this year please be brave enough to help out by "doing a Zuby" and identifying as a woman for the purposes of submitting an entry for next year's prize?
This business of organisations saying of course when we meant "women" we always meant "women and men who identify as women" we just didn't bother to spell it out because its so obvious, is cowardice and dishonest.
Its the same trick pulled by Girl Guides and the Women's Institute.
All of these institutions, set up to recognise a particular need of women and girls, unable to just stand up and this is for women; we don't have to budge up because a male person wants in.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
But the terms and conditions for entry for the 2021 Prize for Fiction (which opened on 14 September 2020 and closed this morning) are still the same as they were last year.
There is no sign of the promised policy on their website
Saying that the previous nomination had brought a "ton of violent shit their way" and angry that when their publisher has submitted their recent novel the prize had asked for "Akwaeke Emezi's sex as defined by law.”
Emezi interpreted this as meaning the prize was only for "cis women" (which does not make sense since Emezi does not identify as cis and was eligible)
They talked of transphobic violence "spearheaded" by their their favourite childhood author, calling her a "violent bigot"
Last year they shortlisted Akwaeke Emezi - who identifies as non binary, but who people and the law would recognise as a woman.
So far, so uncontroversial. Should identifying as non-binary exclude you from women's prizes?
Of course not: women are adult human females.
Still they played it for publicity w Chair of judges @KateWilliamsme in March 2019 calling “It a historic moment,” & another writing "I hope the...discussion not hijacked by gender politics "
All of this put under the "trans umbrella" and then switcheroo into the protected characteristic "gender reassignment" .... and from there into the idea of of self-ID as the opposite sex - and access to single sex services for the opposite sex.
This was how it happened.
This, from the case of Bellinger v Bellinger was what was meant by "transsexual" in 2003
It throws open the doors of women's changing areas and toilets to male colleagues who wish to use them if they feel more comfortable.
They don't have to identify as women, or be undergoing any medical treatment. Just declaring themselves non-binary would be enough.
It tells law firms to pledge to "exceed" the Equality Act 2010 & Gender Recognition Act.
No mention of checking whether this might undermine their adherence to the law on sex discrimination, disability discrimination, race and religious discrimination, or sexual harassment.