Ending this madness but 'saving face'

What worries me is that I think the consultation is a done deal - penny mordant seems to be set of self ID plus no change to EA, then basically shoving all the responsibility into the individual service providers to make a justification on excluding men case by case.

This is the ultimate buck passing, because it’ll leave individual providers at risk of legal challenge and there will be an atmosphere of who shouts loudest and harassed them most wins. No one will want to be the first to test their case by case ‘proportionate and justified’ in court.

Interesting times ahead. I suppose we need to press very hard to strengthen the EA, to get precedents set and to oppose self ID.

How do organisations decide policies where they are faced with clashing and opposing interests now?

Organisations seem very keen on telling us that they consult; they seek out staff associations, stakeholders, customers and users in surveys and advisory meetings. They publish their findings, draft a policy and put it out for comment. They invite feedback and keep the policy under review.

What they don't do (unless they want egg on their faces) is to change their policies by stealth and secretly.

I commend the people who, following a tip-off from Woman's Place UK, examined the policies of their local authorities and found that the protected characteristic 'sex' had disappeared.

Following an exchange of emails, some councils changed the wording on their websites, apologised for getting it wrong, and were given a very public round of applause on Twitter.

Those councils that gave mealy-mouthed excuses for bending the interpretation of the law, had their responses retweeted. They were made to look ignorant of the difference between gender and sex. They received even more questions and comments than they expected, I suspect. Hopefully some residents and local media will pick up on the arrogance of law-benders, and take the matter further

Carrot and stick. A reminder that small changes affect rights enshrined in law.

And again, I see the entire point of the concerns about the dilution of safeguarding are completely missed. There will very likely be a Savile post-event moment, where everyone looks back and says 'how did this happen? if we dilute safeguarding in the way that we currently are. And the victims will very possibly be kids with a trans identification.

IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU.

I’ve already stopped shopping at M and S. as you say, there is plenty of choice.

You're welcome to start a thread of your own, Samantha, instead of derailing this one.

This.

Please everybody - don't aid derailing of threads. It's almost impossible to have a decent conversation about a topic already. No point in helping it become even worse.

Another one agreeing with complaining.
And frankly, withdrawing my custom from companies that deliberately remove safe spaces from women. I am prepared to accept that they are initially frightened by the shouts of transphobia but once women start saying 'no' I don't want my bra fitted by someone born male' and 'I don't want gender neutral changing rooms' if we are ignored then I'll shop elsewhere. It's not as if there isn't plenty of choice.

I would also like to point out that no one on this thread has made any of the links, connections or insinuations you have made re: saville.

You may a different thread in mind? Excuse my cynicism, but there have been several brand new posters recently parachuting into threads and saying such things. It does rather derail and in extreme cases can even lead people to the conclusion that the poster would have done so to provoke/provide screenshots.

I’m sure that’s not your intent.

There is an AMA topic Samantha.

We complain.

Complain, complain, complain, threaten to sue, boycott etc etc

Then they at least have the ability to say "we'd really like to make this place gender neutral but gosh darn it we've had so many complaints from those mean feminist that we're going to just have to compromise by providing a 3rd space for transpeople. It's not our fault, those mean feminists made us"

Not all of them will, but as long as they can pass blame onto us it gives them the option

Agree with this.

You're welcome to start a thread of your own, Samantha, instead of derailing this one.

We are concerned about how to stop predators misusing self ID to gain access to women only spaces and services, and how to preserve safeguarding.

OK I’ll bite.

Do you understand how self ID will reduce child safeguarding procedures?

As a parent of three children, how do you feel about the safeguarding procedures that help to protect your children being diluted?

Please note that I am not talking about transpeople. I’m talking about your common or garden Male predators.

Hi all,

I'd seen all the fuss all over twitter about what some people have been talking about on Talk threads like this on Mumsnet.

So firstly this is my actual name, I'm not hiding behind a nickname to be transparent, inadvertently making a pun at the same time.

I'm a Mum of three boys, 21, 19 & 14 and I am post-op Male to Female 14 years. Hopefully you can spot my youngest was our last try for a girl before I had my op. I am equally very much a feminist.

I don't know where to start really I was initially optimistic on seeing the title "Ending this madness but 'saving face', yey I some of my peers on Twitter are blowing it all, up it will be really mature, like parents, especially mums are & matching my day to day experienced on that front.

Then immediately saw this, "How do we avoid getting to a 'Saville' post-event moment, where everyone looks back and says 'how did this happen'?"

I have to say I found this extremely shocking, more so for the Natal Mother of our children, in fact her whole family having been through violence and sexual abuse at the hands of her very father. She started to doing Nanny work to try and flee it. Which is how we met. Her the Nanny to the principles of a Girls Prep School and myself working in the kitchen with my mum the Head Cook.

So I think it really would be good to help dispel a lot of this unfounded fear surrounding Trans people, properly and maturely and educate on many myths that clearly are perpetuating paranoia and a totally unrealistic, unfounded and disproportionate level of fear. If this thread is anything to go buy.

So fire away, ask me questions and I'll do my best to answer, I will say creating a comparison between such things as the "Saville" scandal and Trans people is in its self very offensive & promotes hate.

All my best, Samantha

gym membership !!!!!!

I can't afford gun membership but if I could I would ask, are your changing rooms single sex. And get it in writing they are. and if not I'd say no thanks.

Can the 'no win no fee' solicitors smell pound signs in the air?

I've not been a fan of the USA litigious society but actually now I feel that when our rights are infringed who else can we go to?

What about all those poor women in prison forced to shower alongside a natal man? Or forced to share spaces with a convicted rapist? If anyone knows one of those women, or knows a no win no fee solicitor I think that would be a good place to start.

One of the things self id would bring in, with changed birth certificates, is a 'right' for any male to go into a women's prison (if they legally identified as a woman).

This is unless someone had the common sense to stop it. A male who raped two teenage girls is already in a female prison, do no safeguarding there!

So where exactly will the bar be for 'safely'. I honesty think there is no fucking bar.

I also think any parent whose daughter has shared an overnight space kr shower space with a male on a school trip or 'Girl Guides' trip, without express permission from the parent, should sue.

But that is harder as a young me who identifies as female could be a sympathetic figure and girls would really not want to be labelled as phobic.

But prisons, ful of disenfranchised women forced to share spaces with male prisoners. I think most of us can see the harm. Even those in positions of power who do not give a fuck, they must see the harm! If not, would they like to shower with a male-bodied prisoner!

Great post homefromthehills.

Oops, my last post was on the wrong thread. (Note to self - don't leave so many tabs open when looking at feminism chat.)

"Transwomen are women. Any person disputing the existence of women with penises will be guilty of transphobia and escorted from the building."

"Q. So you think that your daughter is a lesbian? How can you help her?
A: See your GP about making her into a man. She'll be happier once her breasts and womb have gone. A lifetime of drug dependence is a small price to pay for male pattern baldness and facial hair."

We complain.

Complain, complain, complain, threaten to sue, boycott etc etc

Then they at least have the ability to say "we'd really like to make this place gender neutral but gosh darn it we've had so many complaints from those mean feminist that we're going to just have to compromise by providing a 3rd space for transpeople. It's not our fault, those mean feminists made us"

Not all of them will, but as long as they can pass blame onto us it gives them the option

homefromthehills, brilliant post
Letting through many people who will make a mistake but might not be able to admit that they have or who go too far in transition and it is too late when they realise
Gatekeeping almost gives those people who are stuck on a pathway they can't turn away from a way out. In terms of MTF in particular, the rush to transition early is based on younger boys passing better. There's no female equivalent, a younger girl wouldn't necessarily look more male! Testosterone does a good job of virilisation in adult women, even when it isn't wanted (baldness and clitoral enlargement in female bodybuilders for example). In the case of the boys, my personal opinion is that AGPs believe the existence of more "passing" transwomen somehow validates them. So the youth are medicalised unnecessarily.

Turph, having gone through that gaterkeeping I completely agree with what you say.

It is why I am fighting hard to retain the last semblance of assessment that exists.

In reality the gatekeeping should be extended back to how it was, not scrapped - as I suspect most TS people would tell the government. We know how it worked.

It is so obvious from this side of the fence that the shift from proper psychological assessment and a strict policy of if there is any doubt/then you are out - when it came to supporting transition or not - seems cruel but worked.

It kept numbers down to about 200 cases a year UK wide (not thousands of kids alone as we are seeing now and rising year on year - about as obvious a warning sign of sociological contagion as you can imagine).

It allowed doctors to predict with amazing accuracy how many transsexuals existed in the UK (5000) in 2004 and so how many would access a GRC today (4990 right now).

That does not happen if they do not understand what they are doing and the sudden arrival of half a million others is a further big neon sign saying social contagion. Not - oops we miscalculated a little bit.

The vast numbers of other people out there today wanting rights are not TS and are coming from some place else. Lots of some places else by the looks of it. That needs proper study not shoving under the mat and quietly getting rid of ANY study.

Many of this newly demanding multitude will be from the 90% who did not get through the gatekeeping in the past.

This was set up to judge who really HAD to transition to be able to live a productive life versus who just wanted to do it in hope it might make them feel better.

Today these seem to be regarded as interchangeable but it should be obvious they are totally different. Otherwise what was the point of having that filter process in the past. Which resulted in a 98% success rate for satisfaction post GRS - one of the best of any NHS surgical procedure in history.

Most of those turned away by the gatekeeping often had many other psychological problems going on in their lives as well as or masquerading as being trans and who also often flip flopped between wanting to transition and not. From one day to the next sometimes. Possibly what today might be called gender fluid.

It is so worrying that government seem unaware of this and do not see that in the period of strict gatekeeping with numbers limited to those who HAD to transition and excluding the ' just feel like doing it' majority this filtered out the inappropriate cases - most of whom never did transition even years later. Again a big hint that says things were working.

They were presumably not really trans enough and got married and had kids and got over it and found a way to try to be happy that was better suited to their needs.

Letting all of those who in the past thought they wanted to transition to actually transition would have been a disaster then and today is a sure fire way of doing several scary things.

Letting through many people who will make a mistake but might not be able to admit that they have or who go too far in transition and it is too late when they realise .

Instead of solving anything they will then be worse off and the looming catastrophe of thousands of kids many of whom might have no way back after blockers is where the above situation is headed. An inevitable and entirely avoidable tragedy.

It also will create a sub set of people who never see analysts but are riddled with psychological traumas they never got fixed.

They will think that 'changing sex' (which they will not have been schooled to realise is impossible by the psychological gatekeeping - but instead brainwashed into believing via 'transwomen ARE women' mantras really happens) will cure their problems when in many cases it may actually make things worse.

This will result in chaos as all of these people mix together in a conflicting mess of inappropriate treatment or non treatment as resources are withdrawn.

And women will be at the centre of these failed transitions by embittered people who realise too late that they were led to the edge of a cliff and told to jump with the promise of a fluffy mattress waiting to break their fall below and finding that all that was really there were jagged rocks.

Yeah, it's a bit off topic so apologies, but the gatekeeping is the bit that ensures a happy outcome. Sitting an individual down, explaining that sex can't be changed, that fertility is gone, that surgery is basically irreversible, that passing is not guaranteed, that the dating pool is massively reduced, that there are other health concerns attached to the transition, counselling for the whole family, including children and spouse of adult transitioners - all that would help guarantee thay transitioning is a one-off, one-way thing. A journey with a designated destination. Numbers would be very low, as they were previously. That to me is caring. Rushing any child who is a bit different through a meat grinder is not caring. Allowing fetishistic men the same rights and space as the transsexuals described above is not caring. Trampling all over women is not caring. Allowing anything TRAs want because they've pulled the suicide emotional blackmail is not caring (it's gullibility). Gatekeeping is due diligence work.

I do think actual transsexuals exist, and I support them wholeheartedly. Their numbers are tiny and the ones I have met are individuals who have found peace in themselves. This was in the time of heavy "gatekeeping", incidentally

Not 'incidental' at all, really - on another thread @homefromthehills has written a very interesting post relevant to this which, if the policy makers would read and understand might help them to get (back) to a more rational position.

As it stands "transphobe" has more power than "misogynist". "Racist" has more power than "islamophobe" and the latter already gets eyes rolling, rightly or wrongly.
I think the practical suggestions so far are excellent. Bowl's suggestion to get insurers involved is an even quicker way of hitting them in the pocket than suing.
-Extremist/gender extremism (instead of TRAs or trans lobby);
-'grooming' of parents, carers and service providers with 'project fear'
- the 'radicalisation' of students and LBG organisations into extremism
- A cavalier attitude to a Thalidomide catastrophe in waiting
- examples of persecution and intolerance of non-conformity or dissent.
And these are spot on, Pam
The Thalidomide angle is a good one. Kids on life-long hormones are an NHS nightmare. Some concerns around what their children may suffer in terms of birth defects, concerns about fertility, finally leading to the conclusion that in most cases the individual ends up sterile. People don't know this. Like they don't know 80% of TW are TW by their own admission only and have not taken any hormones or had any surgery. People don't know that. That 70-90% of GNC kids grow up fine (and gay). Nobody knows these facts. That even for deeply gender dysphoric people, the suicide rate (the ultimate emotional blackmail in any argument) remains the same post-surgery. Again, people assume the surgery is a "fix" and the patient is "cured" but this couldn't be further from the truth. From my point of view, the happiest trans people are straight male autogynephiles, and most other people under the massive trans umbrella are pretty unhappy.
I think that's what enrages me the most. They aren't even happy. We've come all this way and being out and gay/lesbian is not as difficult as it was - and instead of moulding "man" or "woman" to fit themselves, dressing, acting, loving and fucking how they want, trans people* throw us all under the bus, tear up any existing notions and try to start from scratch with a whole new vocabulary.

• I do think actual transsexuals exist, and I support them wholeheartedly. Their numbers are tiny and the ones I have met are individuals who have found peace in themselves. This was in the time of heavy "gatekeeping", incidentally