Why are trans things discussed in Feminism section not a separate topic or have I missed something?

Let's be VERY clear: there is no law that can make me believe that a man can become a woman. There is no law that can compel me to teach my daughters that "women with penises" are just like us.

Laws can be fallible.

Best wishes Ally. Morning sickness is a shocker.

I hope you're able to get some undisturbed-by-morning-sickness sleep soon.

Thanks. It's a lot better than it was but still bad at times (not envy). It will be worth it in the end!

AllyMcBeagle

I really appreciate your input and knowledge, thank you.

I remember your important contribution to this thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3243189-Uncomfortable-about-unisex-toilets-at-work

I hope you're able to get some undisturbed-by-morning-sickness sleep soon.

Ah, it's another one of those "told you so's" for mnhq, cheers snappity :)

The attempt to provoke people into lashing out in response, thus leading to their eventual banning, is not particularly subtle either.

"The excerpt from the GRA that Snappity posted is legit and they are correct."

I am a woman. Please use female pronouns in future

Mumsnet new guidelines prohibit deliberate misgendering use of pronouns. eg the use of 'he' for someone who identifies as a woman.

Mumsnet guidelines have been clear that posters are not required to use the preferred pronouns and have offered suggestions to posters such as using they, initials or rephrasing.

Coersion is not civil, however politely expressed.

Sorry that should have been
I know this point about...

It is very sad that someone whom I think is a lawyer gets it wrong. Firstly, peerages are covered in s16 not s19 as AllyMcBeagle states

Firstly, I've already apologised for typos which includes the section mumber. I was going to use the sports section as an example but then thought that peerages would be simpler to explain. Given that I posted in the middle of the night whilst still sick with morning sickness, I think it's actually pretty damn coherent

Secondly, as I say, it's clear what the effect of s16 is. I think your interpretation is strained to say the least. But even if you disagree on s16 I'm going to state again that clearly the people drafting the legislation thought that it contained exceptions because that is what they wrote in the explanatory note.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/notes/division/4/9

I know this is a point about there being no exceptions to the legal change of sex is one that you like to make but I would stop if I were you because it really does just seem rather silly to anyone familiar with the law.

And to reiterate I don't see the relevance to this discussion anyway. The law can say a thing is something else, but it doesn't make it objectively true. Are you not familiar with the concept of a legal fiction? It's not that complicated really. Parliament can pass laws saying up is down but it doesn't change objective facts.

PS. Given that I had no idea who you are 'they' seemed appropriate. I still don't really know who you are as I have never met you. What is so objectionable about gender-neutral language? I use it for lots of people, even in situations where I actually know the people in question.

Brilliant thanks

twitter.com/AskNic/status/1010448401748676609

Oh my goddess. It's like rubbing a lamp

fairplayforwomen.com/legal-rights-transgender-people-biological-women/

"Fair Play For Women has written a series of articles on the important topic of the legal rights available to transgender people and to biological women. How the rights of these two groups interact is crucial to an informed debate on GRA reform. We are also producing a series of factsheets to promote awareness. We need to know our rights if we want to defend them. This list of articles and factsheets will be regularly updated.

List of articles:

Trans rights do not exist in isolation: We must balance the rights of all – all you need to know here

The Gender Recognition Act – What does it means for women

The Equality Act – a woman’s right to single-sex spaces and services

Transgender rights: How did we get here? Part 1: Equality Law

Transgender rights: How did we get here? Part 2: Changing legal sex

The Scottish Consultation on reform of the Gender Recognition laws.

And Factsheets:

FACTSHEET: UK Equality law and the single-sex exemptions

FACTSHEET: A woman’s legal right to seek refuge in a biologically female-only space

FACTSHEET: Guide to the Scottish Consultation on GRA reform

FACTSHEET: Girlguiding’s current transgender policy is not fit for purpose – here’s why"

Snappity we do need to be using the same language don't you think? We need to know what you mean by words! You need to stop using them if you don't know what they mean. So, please stop ignoring our request for you to tell us what you mean by 'woman'.

Anybody who doesn't want to engage in the debate can choose not to do so. Anyone who wants to start a thread about something else can so so. Whenever the idea of a separate topic has been raised, the consensus is against. It is very much a matter of personal opinion. Some people would prefer a separate topic for all kinds of discussions, personally I'd like MRAs to have their own board, also people who can't spell.

Back to the original question I have often wondered this as there are some really good posts in this forum on other topics and I wonder how many people are put off looking for them if they don't want to enguge in this debate for whatever reason and not everyone does. The site admin have said no to a separate section so we are where we are with everything together. I'm not sure if deviding it off would be seen as silancing people it might be also at some point the level of posting will decline maybe and you would be stuck with a section that is little used. If you look back in the section you will see other times when topics have dominated the conversation though not for this length of time

www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=42&v=2rGypxyL-h0

You choose not to understand the clear exceptions in the EA and GRA.
I am not surprised you are unable to understand the perfectly clear writing of Pratchet.

Eh? What indicator? That reads as nonsensical to me.

The indicator that shows no change of sex has taken place is the fact that no change of sex has taken place, and that the person has remained the original sex, and that they are still the sex they were before the piece of paper was issied. Three huge clues that no change of sex has taken place.

"Pretty sure Snappity is a PBP and thus shouldn't be here at all according to the rules."

Untrue

"So if you take s19 of the GRA for example which says that a GRC "does not affect the descent of any peerage or dignity or title of honour," that means that the person with a GRC is effectively still treated as their birth sex for the purposes of the succession rules, and it is therefore an exception to the general position that people with GRCs are treated as their new gender/sex. It is an exception regardless of how it is phrased. It doesn't have to literally say that the person with a GRC is still their original sex for succession purposes, that is it's effect."

It is very sad that someone whom I think is a lawyer gets it wrong. Firstly, peerages are covered in s16 not s19 as @AllyMcBeagle states. So let's quote s16:

The fact that a person’s gender has become the acquired gender under this Act—

(a)does not affect the descent of any peerage or dignity or title of honour, and
(b)does not affect the devolution of any property limited (expressly or not) by a will or other instrument to devolve (as nearly as the law permits) along with any peerage or dignity or title of honour unless an intention that it should do so is expressed in the will or other instrument.

Firstly noted that although Ally claims this is an exception to the change of sex/gender, that the section itself refutes that and explicitly says that the gender has become the acquired gender (which by s9 reaffirms that sex has become the acquired sex). So s16 - not s19 - is definitely not an exception as claimed.

Moreover, Ally says, "that the person with a GRC is effectively still treated as their birth sex for the purposes of the succession rules," but there is nothing in the text of the statute to reflect that view. Subsection a) says nothing about the person who has changed sex. What it says is that the change of sex doesn't change already established lines of inheritance. Why should it? They are already set. Why should one person changing sex affect whether or not a second person inherits a peerage? It clearly should not. And that is what s16 says. It is a section about lines of succession and not about the person who has changed sex.

This is not an example that the change of sex hasn't taken place.

You have no leverage to force women to obey you here.

You haven't said what you mean when you say woman. I think I mean something different by it, but I'm not sure tbh. We need to have the same meanings for words if we are to talk to each other. What's your meaning for it?

"The excerpt from the GRA that Snappity posted is legit and they are correct."

I am a woman. Please use female pronouns in future