Trans women are women answers to Terfmore's questions

Self id does matter peaks because that two years ‘living as the opposite gender’ and the diagnosis of gender disphoria is vitil in creating a culture where not any male can just decide they are a woman that day and enter women’s spaces such as changing rooms etc.

When self id comes through it will become impossible to tell the difference between a non binary person who’s just decided to be female 20 minutes ago and a male person who just wants to push boundaries.
It’s not the actual law that’s the issue it’s the culture that law creates.

Unlike some posters on here I’m ok with people being able to get a GRC I think the system we have now is a good compromise between two conflicting rights but self id is where I say no.

Peak I didn’t say anything about surgery, not sure why you directed that comment at me?

My interests lay in disaggregating sex and gender where sex is important.

I would be happy with have a category that is inclusive of sex and gender identity for all circumstances where sex is not a significant variable. But where it is, we need to distinguish between the two.

Some examples: victim of crime statistics, career progression, longevity of life etc, etc, etc.

It is in the interests of everyone to make sure we monitor equality of opportunity using the different variables.

Then there are examples where provision based upon by the privacy and dignity afforded by segregating those with male-sexed bodies and female-sexed bodies. It is nonsense for access to be determined by identity.

I think the problem is that one word is being used to describe two completely different things.

Identity is personal and subjective.

Biological sex is objective and unavoidable. A woman who has sexual intercourse with a man may become pregnant. It doesn’t matter how she identifies or whether the sex was consensual. (I know people have attempted to argue that sex is a social construct, but the continued survival of the human race suggests that a particular group of people are continuing to grow humans inside their bodies.)

‘Trans women are women’ deliberately obscures that difference.

That's an awfully morbid autocorrect you have there, Ophelia.

MrsBeau as far as I can tell though there are no surgical requirements for currently getting a GRC- you just need a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and 2 years living in the new gender.
Given all the concerns from people on here, why are you happy with the current definition of woman meaning adult female or male with GRC? The definition already includes males. It will still include males- it’s just that a doctor won’t certify that the male really believes he is a woman.

Surely the Equality Act is the real point here, not self-ID. If that will not be amended (and reports can recommend anything- they don’t need to be followed) then the exemptions will still apply and refuges can refuse to admit trans women. So it does not actually massively change the situation. You might have a few more people with a GRC but they can be excluded anyway. People on here have already made plain that they don’t think anyone can change sex, regardless of having a GRC either under the current or proposed rules.

If the focus was on retaining EA and tightening policy on its use, I would understand better. But by constantly trotting out the phrase self-ID, it makes the whole thing lose credibility.

What?
The exemptions

*that was about removing the cremations in the EA

It doesn't mean Labour won't if they got in.
It's what the most powerful TRA lobbyists want. It's not going to go away.

It is disingenuous to suggest, as I keep hearing, that the recommended GRA amendments would impact on nobody other than those seeking a GRC.

It would significantly change the classification of 'woman', and there are many repercussions for this.

As it stands, from a legal perspective, woman means natal females who do not have a GRC and natal males who have a GRC and diagnosed gender dysphoria.

If the suggested amendments go through, from a legal perspective, the term woman would refer to anyone who chooses this label.

The term woman would simply be a self selected label, removing all of key defining features of the category.

bd67th the Tories have categorically started that they will not be updating the Equality Act as per that recommendation.

If you look through any of the threads on replies to letters to MPs (FWR board) you'll see it in black and white. Happy to link one if that's easier.

And great illustration Bloodmagic

And I relate to Ereskigal's comments - her common sense clarity is informative especially around ill thought legislation when the parliamentary push is on clearing out confusing and /or unnecessary laws not adding to it

I'm in the men can't be women camp - they can be a semblance of a woman- fair enough if that's your thing. That's been around for a long time. Live and let live.

However sequestration of a sex is another thing altogether. They are still men to my eyes. And asking me to lie about what I see and experience is coercion - and that's illegal.

Many women don't want men in any form around them in certain situations for good reasons - which has been accepted in law for many years now. The question I have is why is that need disrespected, dismissed and ignored by many TRAs? Some seem to want to erase women's needs - to pretend they don't exist - that's the problem that many seek to cover up by obfuscation and overwhelming by detail #wawag

@peakpants
There are already provisions in the EA allowing for same sex segregation. The reforms of the GRA will not impact on the EA.

The report (copy at stephaniedaviesarai.com/cwc/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/390-1.pdf) recommends on p32 that the EA be amended to disallow the exclusion of GRC-holding trans people from services that are currently to allowed to be single-sex. Combine that with self-id (a GRC for anyone who applies for one) and you have a situation where any male, trans or not, can gain legal right of access to female spaces and services by filling in a form and possibly paying an admin fee.

People send phishing emails every week in which they lie to try to get my mail account details. Men pay pimps to be able to rape and beat prostituted women. Why wouldn't men lie on a form and pay an admin fee to get access to vulnerable women?

Interesting OP.

I agree that it might be helpful and kind to treat a transwoman as a woman in many circumstances.

Saying "Transwomen are women" is an entirely different, false and thus divisive statement. It damages the debate.

"Treat transwomen like women" is a statement I could happily support. Kind, inclusive, not denying reality, not denying anyone's feelings, live and let live. From that basis we can start to talk about when it is appropriate and inappropriate to treat transwomen as women and when as men.

PeakPants I suggest you read what the actual recommendations are that the government has agreed with. They go far beyond merely reforming the GRA and they will most definitely impact the EA. It's in black and white you know, on the government website. We aren't dreaming this up.

I certainly don't want them to be further weakened by legitimising and normalising the idea of men in women's spaces and making women feel they can't ask for help, as with self ID. Gender dysphoria is a medical condition. There is no reason other than that basis (and I don't personally believe even then) for legal rights for men to invade women's privacy.

Yes, and I'd like to seem then strengthened. I'd like a clear understanding that women need sex segregation in certain circumstances for their privacy and dignity. And for it to be considered discrimination on the grounds of sex not to provide it.

There are already provisions in the EA allowing for same sex segregation. The reforms of the GRA will not impact on the EA.

You say the GRA goes too far but the case that led to the GRA, Goodwin v UK concerned the right to prevent your employer from finding out your birth gender. So unless you want us to leave the ECHR (which I would hope not) then the possibility of legally changing gender is here to stay.

not even the most ardent Tories would reverse the GRA and remove the rights that were implemented after the European Court of Human Rights said that the UK was not compliant with the Convention

It doesn't need to mean what it means now. It went further than it needed to. That is shored up by the EA. Ireland for instance has full self ID but prisons are sex not gender segregated. So both could be changed/rolled back if it was recognised that other groups also had rights.

Gotcha Peakpants! (I also don't think the GRA is going anywhere any time soon.)

Oh we want them to exist as a distinct group believe me!

By existing I meant legal visibility. Recognition that they are a distinct group. I didn’t mean they literally do not exist. Gay people didn’t used to exist in law either until they got specific rights.
Anyway it’s a bit of a silly debate because not even the most ardent Tories would reverse the GRA and remove the rights that were implemented after the European Court of Human Rights said that the UK was not compliant with the Convention. A moot point if you like.

Quick to denial there rat

No someone was saying that posters on here were denying transpeople exist...

Cant remember who and cant be arsed to check ...doesn't matter anyway

I dont know what rat means by 'transpeople dont exist'

Er, I think you're confused, I don't think I've ever said that.

Oh wait, you just said it wasn't me - it wasn't me!

People can exist and also be wrong about many things.