Questions for TRAs or Transpeople on here

I also think the GRA needs to go, it has been reported that if someone claims they are the opposite sex then many work places, institutions etc, make their employees go along with the pretence and all that entails. They don’t have to be doing anything at all, just simply claim they are the opposite sex for that to begin. Moreover, they can obtain a GRC and still retain their genitals. Not to mention the fact that it is a complete nonsense that someone can change sex anyway. Some may think it is acceptable if the males have had full surgery, I think that would stop many of the more dangerous men, but since they don’t need to produce a GRC anyway it is surplus to requirements. The GRA therefore needs to go. Instead we as a society should be encouraging feminine men to accept themselves as feminine men and masculine women to accept themselves as masculine women. Not going along with the sexist idea that they are actually the opposite sex and having such a sexist and homophobic (since those that are likely to have surgery are more often lesbians and gays) statute written in law.

I have seen many non-passing transwomen in loos. I never actually stopped to think if they had a penis or not. As long as I wasnt seeing it, it didnt matter. Women and transsexual women have shared these spaces, for years it worked on mutual respect.

As long as they caused no issues, there was no problem. It certainly never bothered me.

But then we have gender fluid Travis, who by his own definition is not a woman, demanding and being granted to access to womens changing rooms in TopShop. Our TopShop has crappy curtains and mostly teenage girls undressing, who are entitled to some privacy.

That code of respect has been broken.

IMO, Id like to go back to having transsexual women using womens spaces respectfully, but that simply cant happen, so we need to have sex segregation enforced.

That isnt a result of gender critical women, but people, usually young males, taking the piss and refusing to even acknowledge what a woman is, never mind affording us any respect or privacy.

Lesbian, or pretendbian?

Using lesbian (why lesbian?) non biological parents on a birth certificate is a confusing analogy for the situation. I think a better analogy would be that men are changing the definition of women for the benefit of themselves and to the disadvantaged of women and girls. And those same men getting pissed off and often violent when women say no.

@Mxyzptlk - It at least shows a level of respect through connotational (is that a word?) differences between male and man. I am a believer in ‘trans women are women’ but I’m not naive enough to not see the differences between trans women and women. Does that make sense? I AM male.. I cannot change that biological fact. But I’m not a man. I can only speak for myself though.

If I put it a different way.. I would never ever call a lesbian a dyke. They are both synonyms for the same thing, but one is a slur to the recipient of the word. To call a trans woman a man undermines the effort and struggle many trans women go through to gain some level of acceptance.

I appreciate ‘they’re just words’ but words have a powerful effect on people.

@Hyppolyta - not trying to be argumentative, just looking for you to elaborate on your opinion: does you having no problem with GRC holders extend to trans women that don’t pass? I’m still about 18 months away from being able to apply for a GRC, I still have a penis (that is likely to be the case for.. 24+ months), I also use women’s loos and changing rooms (the latter of which I only change in if there are cubicles, if not I don’t change on site, I just stick my stuff in a locker in the changing rooms and then leave and then retrieve at the end of my climbing/gym session and leave again). I definitely pass less when using the gym but even if I did have a GRC.. I wouldn’t carry it around with me, so I couldn’t prove if I had one or not.. does that make sense? How would you distinguish between GRC holders and non GRC holders?

As a side note, if their were genuine ‘gender neutral’ facilities (not just disabled facilities that ‘can’ be used as gender neutral) then I probably would use them.. just to avoid any conflict as being perceived to be a threat.

LaSqrrl who on earth is it offensive to? Seeing as I'm a lesbian myself.

Going back to the OPs question I am trying to think of a way to explain why trans people are upset with GC feminists.

I'm having trouble understanding how you can look at us and see hate? We are the ones saying that everything you are is fine and perfect. We can't make you something you're not, no one can. But we also think you don't need to be anything other than exactly as you really are. What's so bad about that?

Let's imagine the OP is talking to the non biological mother in a lesbian couple. Effectively the OP is saying 'we can't make you the child's mother, no one can, so you shouldn't be on the birth certificate or have any legal rights over the child. But why do you need to have that? We don't think you need to be a legal parent because biologically you're not. What's so bad about that?

daimbars

re your toilet photo - I am a woman without a child who lives in Brighton - just wondering where am I meant to pee then? I don't appear to be included??

We need to make individuals and organisations aware that they can exclude TIM even with a GRC from female facilities. Some seem to think or are been told that excluding TIM is discrimination.

^ This, absolutely this!

We need to make individuals and organisations aware that they can exclude TIM even with a GRC from female facilities. Some seem to think or are been told that excluding TIM is discrimination.

NatLuc You say:
the same way that what is is to be a woman cannot be universally explained - not going down this road lol

I genuinely don't understand this. Of course it can be universally explained! Where is the confusion or ambiguity?

Hyppolyta I didn't say sex segregation is never needed but as you point out there are exemptions in the Equalities Act which protect women.

Being concerned about self ID is one thing... saying trans people should not be able to legally change gender at all is taking it too far imo.

Hyppolyta Put it this way. Have you ever been asked for a copy of a GRC or even a birth certificate to enter a woman only space? No, me neither and nor are TIM's. They use all women's spaces anyway with the exceptions such as refuges. If in the male estate in prison they can be asked to be moved to the female estate and they can go onto women's wards etc. The GRC was really to allow a trans person to marry easier and for pension rights. All of this is equal now so the GRC is largely redundant.

True, but even with a GRC they cant use certain womens spaces such as changing rooms etc, the exemptions are provided in the Equalities Act.

I think its as a shame people who have obtained a GRC are going to end up losing rights because of the people like Daim insisting that no sex segregation is ever needed, but sadly I dont see any other result here.

Hyppolyta A man with a GRC can still have a penis.

Personally, I have no issues with those who have a GRC using female spaces, in relation to the exemptions set out in the Equlaities Act.

That isnt the problem, is it?
Self ID and the loss of sex segregation and womens spaces is the problem.

Hyppolyta a GRC is also a legal document. Trans people with a GRC are able to get their birth certificates amended.

A person born biologically male is legally able to change their gender to female.

Two biological women are legally able to appear on a child's birth certificate.

If you want the law to only reflect biological realities this would have by implications for same sex couples and families.

Seeing as a lot of GC feminists are gay this would be a pretty massive own goal.

PleaseDontGoadTheToad Nail on head. It's being able to use women's facilities that gives the validation to TIM's.

if you are taking a stance that 'you can't argue with biology' then that would also mean not allowing same sex parents to both be a parent on a child's birth certificate. You can't have one 'biology only' rule for one set of people and not the other

A birth certificate is a social construct. You still don't seem able to comprehend the difference between biology and paperwork.

toilets / swimming pools etc are generally gender neutral and set up for trans people to peacefully exist alongside everyone else.

I thought TRA's wanted men who identify as women to be allowed to use female toilets. Surely making them gender neutral defeats the object and is not what they want?

natluc, you'd be happy with the terms 'feminine male' and 'masculine female'?

Those brighton toilets are a crock of shit! Loss of girls/women only spaces.

places like Brighton as toilets / swimming pools etc are generally gender neutral and set up for trans people to peacefully exist alongside everyone else. There's therefore no need for anyone to be 'critical' of another person's gender as it doesn't impact them in any way.

And that is where the porkies are "as it doesn't impact them in any way". It impacts females hugely, and mothers too, who don't want their daughters changing alongside males (of any kind btw).

So what actually happens, these changes get made, without real consultation with women/women's groups, and after the changes have been made - women have no choice but to stay away from those places.

That you cannot see how this enormously impacts females, is a byproduct of your male socialisation, clearly. Because if you were actually female, you would know this shit.

Two women could both be legal parents.

They couldnt both be biological parents.

A birth cert is a legal document.

Daim you need to stop providing strawman arguments about sexuality, and concentrate on the problems about gender and sex.

Then you may start to understamd the issue.