Confused

Or Women and Whoa! Men! ?

Dakinis
Now you're back, can you answer my question?

Who would benefit from self ID?

You say the the amendment is 'inconsequential', so why not leave the law as it is now?

If the law is to be changed, it should be up to those who want to change it to show that there is a net benefit. If there is not, then the law should remain as it is. So who would benefit, and in what way, from the proposed change to self ID?

This is the third time I've asked, so I hope you'll answer this time.

Who benefits from self ID?

Yeah!

Male : Female: Woke!

The New Loo signs

The women who 'don't mind' can use the mixed sex toilets then, and leave the rest of us horrible cunty bitches to ourselves.

Mixed sex for anyone, women only and men only (biological definitions).

Or make the men's toilets mixed sex, and keep the the women's single sex. Why would that not work?

Dakinis

As other people have pointed out, my consent isn't yours to give. That's the concept.

The law is different. But the law needs to change now.

Your argument that this is the way it is, so shut up, doesn't work. Certainly for me.

Even with the law as it stands, there should not be rapists without a GRC in female prisons. There should not be men competing against women in sport.

The Labour Party shouldn't have decided to illegally break equality law by claiming all women shortlists are open to men without a GRC.

Exemptions are discretionary. And they are not being used. They need to be upfront and centre.

Protocols and customs need to make very certain that if women are not comfortable with men in their space, they have every right to tell them to fuck off.

My seven-year-old niece is not responsible for confronting a man in her space. Neither should she ever feel as though she can't say you're a man. Neither should be groomed to accept that certain people with penises are acceptable when she's half naked.

Ridiculous propaganda going to schools teaching children that they can change sex need to stop and the people responsible should be prosecuted.

Gender neutral toilets should only ever be in addition to sex segregated. Girls in school should not have to feel as though they are being phobic if they don't want to get changed with a teenager who yesterday was a boy in their class.

I, and many women are done with compromising.

I may not speak for you, but you cannot override my consent. This is not a two way street.

The fact that you think you can, is worrying

Better than ‘Penis Beaker’, even,

That was possibly the best page in mumsnet history.

As you were.

I still don't see how supporting GRA reform is giving away women's rights as we don't currently have any legal right to exclude trans women from our spaces. In fact under the current law trans women are directed to 'live as a woman' for 2 years prior to obtaining a GRC.

How can I possibly give away something we don't currently possess...?

The only way to stop the vex
Is make some toilets unisex

Unisex? You transphobe you,
It's not about using the loo,
Validation is where it's at,
And unisex won't give you that

Charliethefeminist Exactly, this can be solved in a simple (though perhaps expensive) way. Have 3 sets of toilets/changing rooms etc. Mixed sex for anyone, women only and men only (biological definitions). Those with no problem with mixed sex are free to use them (my betting is the queues will be shorter) and everyone who wants to use single sex can do so. Problem solved.

Hairy, I love this.

Dakinis, our consent is not in your gift. You should campaign for spaces where you can share with male bodied people if that's what you want so much. You can't give away our privacy and boundaries.

The problem with female only spaces
Is lots of women have hairy faces

That's not a problem if the women have hairy faces because they're menopausal. It is a problem if the hairy faces are male beards.

Women are saying No and men are insisting. Typical male behaviour.

Hate and incense? Wut?

I don't really like the concept of privilege, but I wish women who are so keen to give away other women's rights because they themselves aren't fussed would appreciate their considerably privileged position of this not being an issue for them.

Apologies for not doing this in verse.

Channelling baldrick, ‘the guns.’

No no no no
No no no
No no no no
No no no

Come on let’s not be pricks
And stop the obsession with the dicks
The problem with female only spaces
Is lots of women have hairy faces
And muscled men of considerable girth
We’re assigned to be female at birth
The only way to stop the vex
Is make some toilets unisex
Let’s stop all the hate and incense
And show a bit of common sense

jolly good, good luck to you
I bet your friends are happy too
I'm sure the grins in selfie pics
aren't half as happy as their dicks

That’s fine Hairy I don’t care
I’ll just say yes when you’re not there
Lots of lovely neutral spaces
Full of happy friendly faces

I wouldn't dream to speak for you
You can pretend, and others too
But here's the rub; when I say no
consent is absent - he must go.

(Don't give up your day job)

You're right nothing, it is very limited. This is the only study I know of.

Transsexual individuals were at increased risk of being convicted for any crime or violent crime after sex reassignment (Table 2); this was, however, only significant in the group who underwent sex reassignment before 1989.

Gender differences

Comparisons of female-to-males and male-to-females, although hampered by low statistical power and associated wide confidence intervals, suggested mostly similar risks for adverse outcomes (Tables S1andS2). However, violence against self (suicidal behaviour) and others ([violent] crime) constituted important exceptions. First, male-to-females had significantly increased risks for suicide attempts compared to both female (aHR 9.3; 95% CI 4.4–19.9) and male (aHR 10.4; 95% CI 4.9–22.1) controls. By contrast, female-to-males had significantly increased risk of suicide attempts only compared to male controls (aHR 6.8; 95% CI 2.1–21.6) but not compared to female controls (aHR 1.9; 95% CI 0.7–4.8). This suggests that male-to-females are at higher risk for suicide attempts after sex reassignment, whereas female-to-males maintain a female pattern of suicide attempts after sex reassignment (Tables S1andS2).

Second, regarding any crime, male-to-females had a significantly increased risk for crime compared to female controls (aHR 6.6; 95% CI 4.1–10.8) but not compared to males (aHR 0.8; 95% CI 0.5–1.2). This indicates that they retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime. By contrast, female-to-males had higher crime rates than female controls (aHR 4.1; 95% CI 2.5–6.9) but did not differ from male controls. This indicates a shift to a male pattern regarding criminality and that sex reassignment is coupled to increased crime rate in female-to-males. The same was true regarding violent crime.

Hope I've copied the right bit - in a car so hard.

journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885

The problem we have Hairy
Is you are you and I am me
So you can only speak for you
Please don’t claim to speak for me too.

If even one of us says no
Then I'm afraid they'll have to go

...and if you feel you must persist
you'll find I'm going to still resist
for English language doth bestow
a thousand words that rhyme with no

My boundaries are absolute
I'm saying no, your point is moot
You will not disregard consent
You bullying, male-born, malcontent

The females who will lie to you
Are welcome to a brand new loo
where you can all share happily
but you're not coming in with me.