Gender Self Identity Law coming! MNQH and Mumsnetters: Time to pick a side(1000 Posts)
This is going to happen unless we speak out now.
Other thread in feminist chat
Fence sitters everywhere, please read, be aware of what is coming
From the Times:
Tories promote the right to choose your own sex
Transgender reforms for birth certificates
Adults will be able to change their gender legally without a doctor’s diagnosis under government plans that will transform British society.
Men will be able to identify themselves as women — and women as men — and have their birth certificates altered to record their new gender.
Ministers plan to tear up the existing rules that mean people have to live for two years as their desired gender before they can officially change sex.
A consultation on the Gender Recognition Bill, to be published in the autumn, will also include proposals to scrap the requirement that people get a formal medical diagnosis of “gender dysphoria” before applying to switch gender.
Critics warned that allowing people in effect to “self-identify” as a member of the opposite sex, while maintaining the anatomy of their birth gender, would unleash a firestorm of legal cases over access to women-only hospital wards, prisons, lavatories, changing rooms and competitive sports.
Justine Greening, the minister for women and equalities, called the move to give more rights to transgender people the third great “step forward” after equality for women and the legalisation of same-sex marriage in 2013.
The announcement is timed to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the partial decriminalisation of homosexuality in 1967. Greening said ministers want to “streamline and demedicalise” gender change to make it easier for people to switch their identity legally.
In future people are expected to be required only to make a statutory declaration that they intend to live in the acquired gender until death — in line with arrangements already adopted in Ireland.
The consultation will address whether those whose gender is “non-binary” should also be able to define themselves as “X” on their birth certificates.
A separate consultation in Scotland will go further than England and Wales by recommending that “non-binary” people should be able to define themselves as “X” on passports. It will also propose a cut in the age at which people can change their gender from 18 to 16.
The plans will be controversial. Prominent feminists including Germaine Greer and Dame Jenni Murray, the presenter of Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, have questioned whether men can become women even if they undergo a sex-change operation.
Stephanie Davies-Arai of Transgender Trend, a parents’ group, said: “This has huge implications for women. There will be legal cases. The most worrying thing is if any man can identify as a woman with no tests and gain access to spaces where women might be getting undressed or feel vulnerable — like women’s hospital wards, refuges and rape crisis centres — women will just stop going to these facilities.”
Self-identifying was recommended by a parliamentary committee last year chaired by the former cabinet minister Maria Miller and it has the backing of Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn.
Greening also announced the government will make it easier for gay men to give blood. At the moment men who have had sexual contact with other men are barred from donating for 12 months. That will be reduced to three months.
Ministers will launch a national survey of Britain’s estimated 1.5m LGBT people to help inform policy.
The education department has also announced £3m will be spent on “anti-homophobic and transphobic programmes”. Schools, including faith schools, will be required to include LGBT issues in relationships and sex education.
Greening, who is in a relationship with a woman, said: “This government is committed to building an inclusive society that works for everyone, no matter what their gender or sexuality.
“We will build on the significant progress we have made over the past 50 years, tackling some of the historic prejudices that still persist in our laws and giving LGBT people a real say on the issues affecting them.”
Ruth Hunt, chief executive of Stonewall, the lobbying organisation, welcomed the plans. “We need a simple process which isn’t medicalised, intrusive or demeaning,” she said.
The move will put the government on a collision course with some religious groups. Simon Calvert of the Christian Institute said: “It is worrying when the leaders of the main political parties are so out of touch with the concerns of ordinary people.
“Allowing men to self-identify as female without any medical diagnosis allows them to invade the privacy of women and girls.
“It’s time for a reality check. Some things can’t be changed. May and Corbyn want to elevate the principle of ‘gender self-declaration’. But it is wrong, it is anti-scientific and it is dangerous.”
A source who is close to Greening acknowledged that the proposed changes could be problematic. “That’s why we are going to have a consultation, so we can examine all the implications,” the source said.
A Scottish government spokeswoman said it hopes to have “new arrangements in place by 2020”.
yorksha if untrue, what is actually the case?
* My understanding was that once you have had a gender change, your NHS records are sealed and your new gender is recorded with no reference to your old gender. So a trans woman would be offered a cervical smear, but never a prostate exam and so on.*
This is 100% not true.
@Datun Do you mind if I PM you? I have a question which I would prefer not to ask on an open forum. NB the question is unrelated to the DSM and psychiatry.
Do you want female sport over run with billogical men so biological women can't possibly win?Do you think Ian Huntley should be moved to a female prison because he now says he's a woman!
Oh yes, this is what dinosaursandtea wants to do to (real) women, this is what dinosaursandtea loves and wants and condones. Naturally.
After all, the "women" who really matter to dinosaursandtea, the bepenised ones, will still have a fair chance to win! Will have no increased risk to be raped in prison, and when the female prisons become all male, then the bepenised women, whom dinosaursandtea so loves and worships, will not get pregnant from being raped by males.
Dinosaursandtea hates women, (the real ones, with vulvas and uteruses), no mistake about it.
I don't know what movement you're talking about, but it isn't feminism.
Feminists aren't campaigning for equality. If we did, we would argue that three men a week should be murdered by their partner. That 117 million boy babies should be aborted before they are born. That young men should be scalped and murdered in honour killings for marrying outside their religion. That their penis should be rendered sexually dysfunctional, on a par with FGM.
We would encourage women to commit sexual and violent crime so that the 98% of male sex offenders was reduced to 50% female and 50% male.
Feminism is about the liberation of women from these oppressions.
It's not about campaigning for male models to earn more money. (Quite apart from which, if men want to campaign for more money, they are in the supreme position of being able to get off their arse and just do it. Or perhaps you think women should once again just shut up about themselves and do it for them).
What you don't understand, is if women achieved this liberation, equality would be the result.
If women were considered equal to men on every level obviously, the converse would be true.
But if you think campaigning for male models to earn more money should be on the agenda, before campaigning to have women seen as human, you are sorely mistaken. It's an ignorant and uninformed point of view.
Me neither, assasinated.
Nor the bit about all men being rapists either.
Maybe I'm doing it wrong...
I don't mind paying more for my car insurance if the trade off is a world where women don't get raped
Surferjet I don't recognise your description of feminism at all.
The feminist movement is a victim of its own success. As a woman, I can't get cheaper car insurance these days because it's not fair as we're equal to men in every way. Every single perk I got just for being a woman, has been slowly taken away, and a lot of that is due to feminism. They complain about 'men only' clubs, men getting paid more ( even if the man is actually better at his job than the woman ) who said it in the paper the other day about the whole BBC thing, do men complain that female fashion models get paid millions more than male models? No they don't. Women want total equality with men when it suits them and do nothing but moan, even when we have it a million times better than many women on this planet. If a man wants to identify as a woman good luck to him, that means I can identify as a man if I want, sex, gender, it will all mean nothing in the end and we'll just be 'human' - total equality has been achieved - which is exactly what you wanted.
Some in the feminist movement have succeeded in alienating men.
Yeah...men started that one though, eh, what with taking advantage of their massive privilege and not standing up alongside their sisters, wives, daughters and saying "fuck this shit, it's unfair".
Most men (including myself) do get it. But how many men have commented on these threads? Some in the feminist movement have succeeded in alienating men. You only have to look on this site to see 'all men are violent rapists' type of posts.
Zephr I have been on mumsnet for 12 years and I have never seen a post that states that. The post generally says all rapists are men, or 98% of sexual violence is committed by men, not all men are rapists.
To be fair the very act of women standing up for themselves seems to alienate men. The movement is designed to liberate women, not make men feel comfortable.
I've been thinking about this overnight, and also saw the thread discussed in a group I'm in where it was dismissed as "vile transphobia", and the members all vowed to get on a reporting spree about it.
I just wanted to reiterate that none of this is about not liking trans people. None of it.
The issue is this: sex is currently a protected characteristic in law (for example in the Equality Act 2010). The metric by which we currently define who is covered by that act is biological sex. We have this legislation to try to eliminate historic discrimination that women have suffered, and enable women to fully participate in public life, and the law is meant to help that by taking into account that in certain circumstances women's needs are different from men's, and sometimes it's appropriate to take action to redress the imbalance by allowing groups or activities to be available only to one sex, where that is a proportionate method of addressing a need.
This proposed legislation, in the form that I understand it, will overwrite that protection because it discards the metric of sex that triggers the protection that women currently have. The characteristic "woman", is expanded from the current accepted definition of xx - uterus - large gamete producer to include the further characteristic of "and anyone who feels like one".
It therefore looks likely that it will become impossible to provide women only services where these have previously been completely acceptable on the grounds that they meet a need, because those services will have to include everyone who wishes to use them on grounds of gender identity. Any sex segregation becomes impossible.
My issue with this is that women are not being consulted about the changes which will affect our protection in law. We need to be able to discuss what this means for women. Just as women's needs sometimes differ from men's needs when it comes to the law, so do women's needs and transwomen's needs, and we absolutely need to be able to say this out loud and have a civilised conversation about this clash of rights.
OP, could you create a link to the next thread, as this one is full?
Much as I detest it, I wonder if this is one situation where the Daily Mail's obsession with MN could be used to our advantage. If we can somehow make this such an epic topic that it could get more people to become aware of the issue. I know in my real life my family and friends are pro trans because it's right to be pro LGBT. I think most people are blissfully unaware of the magnitude or repercussions of it all.
I'm attempting to link the evidence supplied by interest groups relevant gender bill which appear to have been ignored.
Certainly it's an international human right to not be placed in a prison with males.
Not for this poor woman.
I don't care that mumsnet HQ won't comment on this, but I'm seriously pissed off that they won't put it in trending. I suspect that they think that by permitting the topic to be discussed for long enough, the issue will eventually burn itself out. I feel as if I'm being patted on the head, by Mumsnet HQ, like a good 'little girl', but being put in the back room until I play nice.
So, where is the bill at the moment? Does anyone have a link to the wording?
The BBC article linked in the first post talks about consultation for reform of the 2004 Gender Recognition Act. Someone upthread mentioned a private members' bill. Is there anything else that is happening at the moment?
If we bow down adopt the cis label all it says to the fanatics is that they have won. What next do we do to 'beat' females into submission.
I don't want another label. I am happy with my current labels and none include and will never include cis.
Great post smell. Bedtime for me now, I imagine this will be carried over into a second thread by the morning?
This thread is not accepting new messages.
Please login first.