James O'Brien now

Though I agree with Eresh about the legitimisation.

Yes that's true.

Becoming a 'legal woman' shouldn't really even be possible.

It's a meaningless legal fiction that is allowing men to ride roughshod over women.

Frankly, we shouldn't all need to become expert in equality law. Ffs.

No, as Mumsnet has copyrighted, is a complete sentence.

Feel free to share my post if you're not sure how to word it Trill! Ask yourself why transactivists are so very very bothered about pushing this through.

So should we really be protesting the Equality Act Datun?

Though I agree with Eresh about the legitimisation. Just when I’m Twittering away and someone says that self-ID will literally change nothing, I find it hard to respond. And I like being coherent... though I discovered recently that even if you Tweet something that’s unintenionally not quite correct, most people don’t pick up on it.

There is a lot of confirmation bias in the world....

I think lots of them will get one if they only have to tick a box. And controlling narcissistic types will enjoy the extra legal threat they can hold over people's heads. Revealing that someone has a GRC is in some cases a criminal offence for which you could even go to prison.

HakunaDentata

I'm confused. If the system is working why do they want it to change?
*Just for some magical thinking of being a sex you are not?

They don't really care if it is changed or not. It only becomes significant in prisons and all women shortlists.

The fact that the government said they were going to change it made women wake up and ask what it was all about.

They knew things were happening, and couldn't work out why.

As soon as this issue became public, they drilled down and realised that actually it is the equality act that is making all the damage.

No worries

Wrest is erish - autocucumber sorry

Wrest: 'don't believe a word they say' amen to that. On it.

Sex (which would include trans with a GRC) is a protected characteristic which allows positive discrimination. Gender reassignment isn't. That's why you can have all women shortlists.

The one thing we do have to remember is that allowing self ID for the GRA massively legitimises the concept of "gender identity" and validates the ideology of transgenderism. It renders irrelevant the need to have medical gatekeeping, or that the basis for men to enter women's spaces is because of sex dysphoria. It also will normalise the idea of male bodied people in women's spaces.

These things are a big deal. They WILL make it much harder to unpick the Equality Act if the idea of "gender identity" is written into law. Transactivists know this. Don't believe a word they say,

This is a direct quote that clearly states that a proposal to undergo any part of a process:
Gender reassignment

(1)A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

(2)A reference to a transsexual person is a reference to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

(3)In relation to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment—

(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a transsexual person;

(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to transsexual persons.

Sex is a more protected characteristic than gender reassignment

Trouble is "gender reassignment" is defined in such a woolly catch all way that it means self ID by the back door as no gatekeeping permitted as that would be discrimination.

Ellenripleysalienbaby

It's really confusing.

Because, up until now, it hasn't been a problem. Suddenly a whole load of fetishists, MRAs and chancers have decided to target absolutely everything that has the word 'woman' in it.

Hampstead women's pond, the vagina monologues, bra fitting services for adolescent girls, lesbian restaurants, feminist bookstores, women officer roles, etc.

You name it, they want to target it. Because they can.

They are claiming it's discriminatory, because it doesn't include people who are 'thinking about being trans' (And yes, that's more or less how the equality act wording frames it. Because they never dreamt in a million years that this would happen - duh).

So we are now in a situation where any bloke who want to piss off (or ogle) women can just say they are trans, and, according to the equality act, they are, and therefore they are protected.

It truly is a men's sexual rights charter.

And of course, nice decent man won't take advantage of it.

So what are you left with?

I'm confused. If the system is working why do they want it to change?
Just for some magical thinking of being a sex you are not?

This is why the whole thing should go. Better Equality legislation could deal with discrimination but we shouldn't have this pretence that people can actually change sex.

Sex is a more protected characteristic than gender reassignment

The system is not working as desired but it is as designed. The GRA was not a serious problem until the 2010 EA made gender reassignment a protected characteristic in direct conflict with sex as a protected characteristic.

Exactly, this is why it's not such a problem in Ireland, they don't have the same anti discrimination law underpinning it that we do.

The equality law needs to stop talking about a proportionate means to legitimate aim, and be reworded so that women aren't constantly on the back foot trying to keep men away from their spaces.

This this this this this.

The system is not working as desired but it is as designed. The GRA was not a serious problem until the 2010 EA made gender reassignment a protected characteristic in direct conflict with sex as a protected characteristic.

I bet all of JOBs handwringing questioning about 'the point at which a transwoman actually becomes a woman' would be answered right about the point at which a transwoman asked him to suck their 'female penis'.

We all know what a woman is and a man is. It's how we managed to evolve this far as a species.

I'm confused. If the system is working why do they want it to change?
Just for some magical thinking of being a sex you are not?

Thank you Datun. I have to say I have been reading about this for a good while and I'm still quite confused on some aspects. Joe Public has no hope of understanding it!

Someone on twitter should reply to Paris Lees. I would but I'm blocked. Loads of TRAs and MRAs have blocked me, despite me only ever interacting with one of them, a Dr Cliff something or other. And yeah, he blocked me too. Not fussed, but, rather like the gap between Paris Lee's lugholes, it leaves my timeline gappy.

Ellenripleysalienbaby

Datun, what about women's refuges? Are they exempt from the Equality Act?

Nothing is exempt outright. Like 'no men', full stop.

But exemptions can apply, if they are proved to be 'a proportionate means to legitimate aim'.

So yes, having a male bodied person, or someone who looks even vaguely male, would absolutely be a proportionate means to legitimate aim. Because the women there have been raped by men, so they can fuck off trying to counsel them. Or join in with group therapy sessions.

Women's shelters can invoke these exemptions. They are cracking under pressure.

The equality law, the gender recognition act, and human rights act, are all jockeying for position over how to manage this situation.

But.

It is public opinion that will count.

It took women 15 years to make rape within marriage illegal. And this was in the early 90s. And they had to have a law repealed, in order to do it.

The equality law is being exploited. Evidently.

The equality law needs to stop talking about a proportionate means to legitimate aim, and be reworded so that women aren't constantly on the back foot trying to keep men away from their spaces.