Womens’ committee UGM motion strongly criticised
Laura Payne, YUSU Womens OfficerA motion proposed at the recent Union General Meeting to allow male students to attend YUSU Women’s Committee has sparked campus-wide debate regarding the future welfare of female students at York.
The motion entitled ‘Women’s Committee: open for all?’ has been put forward by current YUSU Women’s Officer, Laura Payne. The motion proposes to allow male students participation in the Union’s Women’s Committee, where they are currently prohibited from attending. They will still be prevented from voting on policy.
Fronting the opposition to the motion is Payne’s predecessor, Amy Burge. The former YUSU Women’s Officer expressed fear at the potential loss of the ‘safe space’ that the Women’s Committee currently provides for female students.
Speaking at the UGM on Thursday January 31, Payne spoke out against the current structure of the committee. She said: “At the moment, Women’s Committee is the only Union committee that is closed to any student, as only those who self-define as female can attend. When male students come along we either have to turn them away or have them there contrary to the constitution.”
She added: “This means that as a committee, we are denied the support and contribution of male students. Further, it makes us less transparent and acts as a barrier to openness and participation.”
Burge, who has set up the Facebook group ‘We Support a women-only Women’s Committee!’ said on the wall of the group: “Women’s Committee is not the place for male involvement. Women’s Committee must be women-only to ensure that it is women who are leading the campaign and making the decisions about how the campaign should be led. Any discussion about this must be made in a women-only environment.”
This group, along with Payne’s pro-motion group ‘Because it shouldn’t matter what’s in your pants… VOTE for OPENNESS!, has a become forum for an outpouring of strong student views.
Secretary of the current Women’s Committee, First-year student, Ellie Kuper Thomas said: “We have everything to gain from receiving the help and support of the male members of our community and everything to lose if we become a closed shop, liable to being stereotyped and typecast against, and thus ultimately easier to disregard and ignore.”
Poster campaigns have also begun by each party, including the posting of fliers into student mailboxes by the Payne’s pro-motion campaign. Some of Burge’s posters had to be removed after failing to comply with Union policy to advertise campaign material on external surfaces.
Grace Fletcher-Hackwood, YUSU Academic and Welfare Officer has leant her support to Burge by displaying posters against the motion in the window of her office. When asked whether she felt this was appropriate she said: “Absolutely. Of course it’s fine, there is no policy stating that Union officers can’t support or oppose UGM motions.” This is the second time since the UGM that a Union officer has publicly taken a stand against a fellow officer.
Burge has also advocated the idea of women-only voting on this motion. She posted on the Facebook group against the motion: “Surely this decision should be made by women students only as it is THEIR campaign and THEIR committee – not allowing women to make this decision for themselves is in itself ALREADY marginalising women’s autonomy.”
YUSU Societies and Communications Officer Sam Bayley was quick to respond, saying that “YUSU is a membership organisation and our constitution does not allow limiting constitutional change or ordinary motions to be limited to only a portion of our members.”
The motion will require a 66% majority to pass. Voting on this motion and the 12 others submitted at the UGM is currently running on the YUSU website, and will close on Thursday 7 February.
Joseph Burnham
I’d suggest that the motion isn’t highly criticised, merely highly controversial. The amount of support and membership on the pro-motion group illustrates that there is a huge amount of support for it from a great variety of people, whereas the against group seems to be made up of a rather vocal minority of people who are already active in the committee.
Katie
What happens if a student defines as neither female nor male? Don’t they deserve union representation equally as much as anyone else?
Bronach
The motion is also criticised from quite a few sources from outside the university. The noted women’s campaigner, Julie Bindel, has joined the group against the motion.
Perhaps York just isn’t leading the way in the women’s campaign, hence a certain amount of students being in favour, rather than against the motion for men on Women’s Committee.
Although I understand that all students can vote on Union and constitutional issues, why are male students getting to vote on the very future of Women’s Committee, when only female students can vote the Women’s Officer in?
Dan Taylor
Sorry; what sex you are is not ’self-defined’ and if you think it is you are talking utter bollocks quite frankly. Sex is genetically determined- if you happen to not like the sex you are, then tough titty. Live with it. All this about ’self-definition’ with regard to something genetically unchangeable is ridiculous and makes anyone who thinks it, the laughing stock of all. Even if someone has a sex change, it 1) does not alter their genetic makeup, and 2) does not alter the makeup of chromosones that make us ‘male’ or ‘female’. It’s politically-correct clap-trap to suggest anything else.
Sarah Foster
It is generally established Dan, that gender and sex are different things. Sex is biological, and yes, does refer to chromosomes, but gender is certainly not connected to biology in any way. While close minded people like you might disagree, there is no way that you can claim that someone who was born male, but has been living as a female (either with or without genial realignment surgery) could be referred to as male. To argue anything else is vaguely offensive and if anything, shows a complete lack of knowledge concerning the psychological ideas contained in the word ‘gender’.
Trans Rights
Dan, you are a nasty, bigoted, small-minded, horrible, horrible man.
Grace Fletcher-Hackwood
Just to point out that I am certainly not ‘taking a stand against a fellow officer’ - I am campaigning against a UGM motion. If you can call sticking a poster in your window ‘campaigning’…it’s not really up to my usual efforts…
Erik O'Connor
Can’t see how Dan’s comment is relevant at all. This is about making a discriminatory institution disappear. It’s really that simple, and putting my face on a poster doesn’t change my mind.
Dan Taylor
At least I’m living in the real world and not one of warped, ridiculous ideas that 98% of the population view as being ‘wrong’. It’s a shame you resort to name-calling rather than challenging my argument as the post above you did.
Dan Taylor
Sarah Foster:
The concept of this motion would not only allow gender-self-defining ‘females’ to attend (as it does already) but instead men who do not somehow (God only knows how) not decide to ’self-define’ as female. If this is not the case, then proposing this motion is futile because anyone who comes and says ‘I am female’ can attend committee. It all seems ludicrous to me. I still do not understand HOW a male can gender-define as ‘FEMALE’. How do they prove this? Or can anyone just say it? Must they wear a dress? Seriously guys, this is not biggotry- I genuinly do not understand how the hell this works. Then again, perhaps guys attending women’s committee may help broaden this understanding…
Ben
Dan- As Sarah said sex and gender are different. However you can’t just change it as you like to just attend a meeting. Its about what people feel and psychological factors. I am interested where you get the idea that 98% of people agree with your ideas. You would be suprised about how open minded most people in the world are not just in university. I live in the “real world” and I don’t share your views.
Sam Bayley
Bronach, just to clarify, Women’s Officers are voted on by a cross-campus ballot (men and women) - this is because they are a trustee. The rest of Women’s Committee voting is women only.
Philip Walker
Ben, Dan’s question is a good one. If someone self-defines as female, then on what basis can anyone else judge the claim? Any standard will implicitly suggest that the judge, not the individual, have the right to decide what being female means. That’s an abuse of the individual’s right to self-determine, yeah?
On the one hand, if people who “self-define” as female must be let in, then there is no standard. But Burge’s statement, that “Women’s Committee must be women-only” assumes the existence of an objective status of womanhood. So which is it to be? Both cannot be true!
Ben
Philip- I voted for and supported the idea of the women’s committee being open to all so for me that is not an issue. The point I was trying to make is that some people can feel like they are a woman in a man’s body or vice versa. It is not a trivial point gender and biological sex are different things. In my opionion no one has to judge the claim you can define as whatever you like that is the idea of a free society. Therefore you can not limit a committee to only one gender. What I took issue with was Dan’s suggestion that 98% of the population view this idea as wrong. I am interested where he got that figure from as I don’t think it’s the case.
Rinky Stingpiece
What was that phrase again:
“Celebrate Diversity; Challenge Prejudice”
or was it “Discord is unity; ignorance is strength”, I forget.
I’ll never understand why we let them out of the kitchen/bedroom (depending on how fat they are).
(go on, take the bait!)
Anon.
BRING ON LADSOC… YEEEEEEEEEEEHHHHHHHH BOIIIIIIII