If you're pro Self ID for trans people please could you explain it to me?

LML are you being deliberately obtuse? If self ID passes it will be unlawful discrimination NOT to hire a male self identifying as a woman as a rape counsellor/smear nurse/bra fitter/whatever.

That man won’t have to put on a dress, take hormones, shave his beard or anything. All he has to say are the magic words “I identify as” and legally he will be a woman. Legally entitled to shower next to your daughter, provide intimate care to your elderly mother, perform a smear on a Muslim woman.

If you can’t see the problems with that I really can’t explain it any more

LML83

I think it will happen more than you think. These are very 'validating' jobs for someone who wants to be considered female.

As someone (Datun I think) eloquently put it trans identified males asking for access to these things is not a neutral ask. There is a purpose to it about breaking down the last of female boundaries and rendering it so we cannot say no to anything.

This person tied Vancouver Rape Relief up in litigation for over a decade almost bankrupting them.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimberly_Nixon_Rape_Relief_Case

There have been some recent UK cases too about women trying to refuse TIMs in medical situations and being accused of bigotry.

mummybear701 wrote - "I though even someone with a GRC could be refused working in a refuge etc. just for the triggering effect of any perceived masculinity. Its vital such places continue to have that discretion."

In case you have not already read it, there is a recent thread about Women's Aid's review of their transgender counsellor employment policy, which was reported by The Times newspaper as "Mary Mason, the board’s interim co-chairwoman, said: 'We have agreed to start a review of our whole transgender policy, including the possibility of employment for self-declared transgender women without a gender recognition certificate.'

Here is the link to the thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3158576-Women-s-Aid-considers-employing-self-declared-transwomen-i-e-men-in-womens-shelters

There is only one coherent argument - that the rights of TIMs to enter women's spaces trumps the right of women to say no.

I understand the Scottish state they trump the right of the disabled too, by colonialism of their hard fought for space, renaming it too, so the TIM is not stigmatised.

The same disabled people that the UN condemned the UK, I don't recall the UK being condemned for their treatment of men or TIMs.

Wasn't it 12 years in court and VAST sums of money spent by one rape charity trying to fight a TRA who insisted on his right to be employed by them and counsel women who did NOT want to be counselled by a biological male.

If a TRA goes for a forced open application system they will have to be entitled to an interview (protected characteristic) and you will have intense scrutiny over any possible loophole for legal action regarding discrimination if they aren't given the job. Plus there will be a LOT of pressure behind the scenes about equality of representation and the necessity to tick the boxes and to be able to demonstrate the Transwoman Working In the Rape Counselling Shelter.

In reality it will look much like Madigan. Someone not remotely interested in the post, merely using it as a point for furthering their personal agenda, backed up by a lot of right on people with their own agenda.

Services for women like refuges are not popular, their funding is constantly cut, they are under constant pressure to sacrifice more space to men: these services are a centre of resentment for MRAs. They do not want spaces for women to talk to other women and reinforce ideas like 'he abused me'.

LML83 - why are you prepared for the law to ever make it a possibility?

Who would employ a man claiming to be a self identified woman as a rape counsellor?

And if you don't gel with a counsellor for any reason I would assume you can request a swap.

How often do you think this will be an actual problem? Hypothetically it may be possible but it would be very unlikely to happen.

That's why no proponents of self-ID are prepared to make it openly. That's why they have to faff about with "don't be mean" (cos y'know, we're women and not supposed to go against our socialisation) or "there will be assaults anyway" (which is basically an argument against having any laws at all).

This is why I drew the analogy earlier in the thread about US gun laws. There are similar arguments going on around that with people trying to circumvent just being truthful and saying outright 'yes my right to bear arms is more important than some children being collateral damage'

LML83 wrote - "What are the women only services/spaces? what are the risks of a trams gender women needing access to this service/space?"

Before I give an example, I want to point out that it is a myth that trans-identifying males (also known as transwomen) all look indistinguishable from biologically female catwalk models, the moment that they self-identify as women. The reality is that most transwomen do not "pass" as women in appearance, voice and body language.

For example, a rape crisis centre. Access for transgender-identifying males is proposed for them as either service users or service providers.

If self-identification becomes law, a woman who is raped will not be able to refuse counselling from a trans-identifying male rape counsellor who may have taken no steps to become less masculine than any non-transgender male. The counsellor could still have a masculine name, a beard, a penis, a deep voice, male body language etc. This would not be a victim-centred approach to rape counselling because it is more likely to trigger trauma in a female rape victim than counselling by a biologically female counsellor. The risk is the victim's recovery will be negatively affected.

There still hasnt been a single coherent argument to explain why people support self ID.

There has not, has there?

There is only one coherent argument - that the rights of TIMs to enter women's spaces trumps the right of women to say no.

That's why no proponents of self-ID are prepared to make it openly. That's why they have to faff about with "don't be mean" (cos y'know, we're women and not supposed to go against our socialisation) or "there will be assaults anyway" (which is basically an argument against having any laws at all).

LML83
What are the women only services/spaces?
Dont you know? I cant imagine never having used one.

• You either need smear tests or you need prostate exams.

• Some health therapy groups, for example for survivors of testicular cancer, are single sex. those are based on biology, not on how people feel.

-Domestic violence shelters are provided separately for men, women and trans people. Women pay a specific tas to fund them, men dont.

• Rape crisis counselling is provided separately for men, women and trans people.

• Hospital wards are usually single sex.

• Psychiatric wards are often single sex.

what are the risks of a trams gender women needing access to this service/space?
Its impossible to let self identifying trans people in and keep predatory men out.

Its not all about 'risk', its also about rights. TIMS do not need to access services that women need based on biology, such as smear tests.
Women have the right to boundaries and consent. Its a basic human right. why does a mans right to validation outweigh a woman's right to consent?

"The proposed law change about self-identification is to make self-identification without a GRC as valid as gender reassignment with a government-gatekeepered GRC, which would seem to make a GRC pointless. If the proposed changes to self-identification become law, then there will be no way to distinguish between the two groups."

I think the government are being deliberately vague how this would work. I though even someone with a GRC could be refused working in a refuge etc. just for the triggering effect of any perceived masculinity. Its vital such places continue to have that discretion.

I take your point it could hurt some who would have been eligible for a GRC and could see their own protections watered down. Transsexuals Miranda Yardley, Debbie Hayton and others have made those very points.

Safe spaces argument is punishing trams gender women for the actions of abusive men.

And that women need to be ok with being collateral damage to those abusive men in the name of 'not punishing ' TIMs.

How many women and girls are you ok with being harassed and assaulted or worse? Give it a number. Happy for that to include you? Your daughter? Your mum?

Come on girls, it's only an assault. Be kind.

mummybear701 wrote - "would it not be easier for a refuge or prison to refuse a man who has self id without taking any other steps to reassign his gender than someone with a GRC who looks and sounds like a woman?"

The proposed law change about self-identification is to make self-identification without a GRC as valid as gender reassignment with a government-gatekeepered GRC, which would seem to make a GRC pointless. If the proposed changes to self-identification become law, then there will be no way to distinguish between the two groups.

Thanks for clarifying Flamingowings. I think it's such a dangerous argument because it's being used so widely by the TRAs, and lesbians are having to basically go underground to avoid these creeps.

What are the women only services/spaces?

what are the risks of a trams gender women needing access to this service/space?

There still hasnt been a single coherent argument to explain why people support self ID.

MrsMcGarry seems to want to abolish hierarchy by placing everyone into the same box, then working out who is at risk and giving them their own space. On the grounds of 'equality'.

But we already did that. Its why we have women only spaces and services. And women only services are not just about risk assessment or trauma therapy, they are also about consent.
removing those services then putting them back after X number of women have been harmed is not an option that should be supported in a Western democracy.

The fact is, offering a service to a group that needs it does not discriminate against anyone who does not belong to that group. they either do not need that service, or need their own equivelant service.
Its a fundamental principle of The Equality Act, and its a principle that has been erased by self ID.
That should concern anyone involved in politics.

It doesn't do me any harm, if a someone identifies as a different gender why should I object?

Safe spaces argument is punishing trams gender women for the actions of abusive men. I also think actual predators are not stopped by a sign on the door saying ladies either.

mobile.twitter.com/PippaBunce

self id is here already

It is, but at the moment it can be challenged in many contexts because it's not law. Once it's written into law that's it, we're fucked.

Have a look at this to see how much time and effort it takes to self id as a trans woman:

Pippa goes to work as a woman some days, and as a man on others.

Pippa Bunce
<a class="break-all" href="http://go.mumsnet.com/?xs=1&id=470X1554755&url=www.out-standing.org/heroes/2017-top-50-women/" target="_blank">www.out-standing.org/heroes/2017-top-50-women/
The FT awards for outstanding women in business
Head of Global Markets Technology Core Engineering Integrations Components
Credit Suisse
Pips took the conscious decision to be ‘out’ at work as gender fluid to embrace and advocate the importance of authenticity as well as to shine a light on the power and diversity of women in the workplace. Multiple aspects of our identity, including gender identity/expression, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, disability and religion influence our experiences at work. Our sex or gender may be the same, but our identities, our successes and our struggles are different and it is for this reason why Pips is proud to be a female champion in business. She is a member of the European Women’s Network/IT Women’s Council and had many external publications relating to gender equality published. Additionally, she has been integral in providing reverse mentoring to management board members of the firm and is co-lead of the LGBT & Ally program at Credit Suisse where she places much importance on intersectionality and how the voices of all types of women and our allies need to be heard to drive forward gender equality – our differences make us stronger and diversity should be celebrated, not tolerated. Pips is also a regular panellist/speaker on gender equality, and often interviewed by external publications on the topic.

self id is here already bit not in relation to the protected characteristic ‘sex’ in relation to the Equality Act. That is why queries have been raised regarding AWS. Currently self-identifying women without a GRC are legally male. This is not just a ‘symbolic’ change.

You have obviously never canvassed. Why would I waste my time on someone who is never going to agree with me because they are so sure they are correct? When told "I always vote UKIP/Tory" I smile, move on and concentrate on finding people who are open minded and willing to listen to my arguments

MrsMcGarry

You don't seem to understand canvassing. It is going with people who have previously indicated they voted in a certain way, and you ring and ask if they intend to still vote that way, if not, why not. If they say they don't want to discuss it, move on, say thank you. Obviously this can be wrong and people move. Then you smile and say sorry for taking up your time.