Reform of the GRA - can someone answer a question?

thanks to whoever recommended the Julia Norman article to me - very interesting

I will oppose self-id, because I don't believe anyone can change their sex. But the GRA is just a tiny part of a much larger issue, or at least it seems to me.

Yes, absolutely. We are now having a conversation that should have been had in 2004 and 2010.

thanks crone

I support self ID for gender, BUT ONLY IF SEX AND GENDER ARE CLEARLY SEPERATED IN LAW

The GRA is not really about self ID for gender, it's about changing legal sex. 'Gender' does not exist as a separate entity in law as far as I can tell - the two are conflated in the GRA.

Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/9

Oh yes, a friend teaches in a college where all the toilets have changed to being for both sexes. No, she doesn't like it, and doesn't like using them. There was no consultation, and she feels that she can't object. And one of the students has decided that they ID as female, but the parents don't approve. So she has to address him as 'she' at school, but remember to send communications home referring to him as 'he'. Crazy world.

thanks for all your responses (I've NC'ed)
I support self ID for gender, BUT ONLY IF SEX AND GENDER ARE CLEARLY SEPERATED IN LAW (and prisons, refuges etc are divided on birth sex, not chosen gender). Am I right in thinking this lies outside of the GRA Betty. As a separate issue, not covered by any existing legislation - i.e. it has to be addressed on a piecemeal basis, when it crops up?
And - just to confirm - a MTF who has a GRC is officially recorded as being female sex. Is that right?
I hope this isn't too boring, I just want to get my head straight before I do anything else. Having seen the intolerance of TA groups at first hand, I feel instinctively opposed to what they are working towards. But perhaps the main problem, as someone said upthread, is that organisations are not supporting womens-only spaces, in a search for 'inclusivity'.
I will oppose self-id, because I don't believe anyone can change their sex. But the GRA is just a tiny part of a much larger issue, or at least it seems to me.
Thanks for all your responses .

F2M regularly use men's toilets.

All those at DD's and DS's school use the disabled (which is a whole other thread).

Funny that.

@OldCrone Agreed, Self ID is only a benefit for men who want to appear to be women. Funny that.

I don't see how anyone can see it any other way but I really am trying to see all sides to it.

It's not all about toilets or safe spaces, I agree @Ereshkigal the professional sports and prisons issue clearly affects women but perhaps a smaller group of women (and children).

@ArmchairAnnie why would a mtf not be able to use a male toilet, because it's uncomfortable or dangerous for them?

It's not all about toilets. FTM do not go to men's prisons. Both because it's not considered safe and because they wouldn't want to.

Hi ArmchairAnnie

Glad you're back. Can you answer my question now?

Who benefits from self ID?

You keep saying it won't have a negative effect on women, and it won't change anything, but if it won't change anything then why change the law?

Someone must benefit from a change in the law, or there is no point in changing it. So who benefits, and in what way will it change their lives?

F2M regularly use men's toilets.

As far as I can tell, the change to self ID is only of benefit of men who want access to women's spaces. In particular, men who are not really transgender, but would like to pose as women for their own nefarious purposes.

For example: Male prisoners who want to be transferred to women's prisons. Mediocre sportsmen who would prefer to compete against women so that they can win. Men who like to expose themselves to women or who like to watch women getting undressed who would like access to women's changing rooms.

I have asked the people on this thread and others who are in favour of self ID who else will benefit, but so far there has been silence. I must therefore conclude that my assumptions are correct.

I'm not trying derail this thread but I also have a question...so much of the GRA is understandably about MTF trans - does it benefit a FTM trans to use a men's bathroom? I can only think of smaller queues, assuming most men use the urinals, therefore the cubicals are more available and clearly the FTM can't use the urinal... and as the FTM isn't a threat to the men in their using the loo...I can't see this as anything other than a one-way threat/safeguarding issue.

A woman with/without a child in a female loo seeing a man in there = weird at best, dangerous at worst

A man with/without a child in a male loo with a woman in there = weird at worst

So women and children are the only ones here at risk aren't they?

Educate me otherwise, honestly not goady, I welcome a differing opinion or reason.

@BlardyBlar - Amen to that.

I would say 82% is a majority. And that was a survey by pink news. Who don't give a fuck about women.

YY. They literally couldn't spin it any other way other than to wail about transphobia in society.

It's bad enough when transctivists talk bollocks, but when it's bollocks that we have spent the best part of a month refuting, and anyone can bloody read, it's unforgivable.

The more outrageous the lie that they can persuade people to believe or force them to speak, the greater the power trip.

I had previously said the 'majority' of the public did not have an issue

I would say 82% is a majority. And that was a survey by pink news. Who don't give a fuck about women.

The majority of organisations already choose not to exempt using the Equality Act provisions, not because of some mass TRA lobbying, but because they don't see an issue and there isn't one as far as the majority of the public are concerned otherwise we would already have seen people up in arms about it.

Hahaha. Every single trans lobby group there is, is running as fast as they can, and have been doing so for years, to write the 'inclusivity' policy of almost every organisation you can think of.

We can read you know.

Only last month a school decided to maintain a girls only toilets. Cue 50 prominent transactivists piling on them to make them change.

They weren't allowed to exempt.

Hampstead heath women's ponds are not allowed to exempt.

Women's bra fitting services, online for adolescent girls - not allowed.

I would be very interested to know exactly what scenario you envisage as being one fit for exemptions?

Any one. Just give me one.

Because I can't think of a worse one than allowing a male rapist to be incarcerated with vulnerable women who he is then allowed to attack.

It's bad enough when transctivists talk bollocks, but when it's bollocks that we have spent the best part of a month refuting, and anyone can bloody read, it's unforgivable.

TRAs are so slippery and/or bad at arguing it's quite breathtaking. Don't want to answer what you said? I'll pretend you said something different.

For the avoidance of doubt, where is this "made clear" in the Equality Act?

ArmchairAnnie

Do point out this part of the Equality Act?

You can't give someone something they already have.

Stop deflecting. Point out the part where, quoting you:

It's made very clear in the Equality Act about the fact that a GRC doesn't suddenly give you magic access

We are being challenged over this specific change and told it will not affect us. Our concerns are dismissed and ridiculed.

But look at this in a wider context: that of the direction of travel.

The original GRA was brought in under the radar. That in itself was no accident. This was a law which allowed people, in effect, to legally change their sex, which is an enormous shift. The numbers were limited and those allowed to change were carefully regulated. Even if it was discovered, concerns could be dismissed as it was never going to have a major impact, in itself.

But then the Equality Act was brought in to supersede the Sex Discrimination Act. Women’s rights were eroded a little bit further. This act was brought in quickly without much scrutiny. It included gender reassignment as a protected characteristic. However the way this was defined meant that even right at the start of that process, one was covered.

Now the GRA is being reconsidered. The proposal is that original terms, which included only a few thousand people are to be removed.

Various groups are also pushing towards changes to the Equality Act such that the protected characteristic would be gender identity, rather than reassignment.

I know I’m teaching my grandmother with most posters here, but look at the direction of travel and how rapidly those changes are occurring. Yet we are told again and again, this is just a small step. You’re silly to worry. These changes are already occurring and nobody is being harmed

The changes are indeed under way. And we can already see the damage . This is not “just a small step that will make no difference”. It’s a stage in a massive pathway swathing through women’s rights. And until we can make that visible to the politicians in power, women will continue to be harmed.

The law*

Old Crone said

that's not what we're saying. If a man can legally become a woman just by signing a document, there will be some men who will do this to gain easier access to women and children in order to commit sexual crimes. There will be no 'going back to normal', whatever that is, that man will be legally female for the rest of his life. Some men will do this. It would be extremely naive to think otherwise.

But not only that, if a woman can be anyone who says they are, and that anyone can be just an ordinary looking bloke, then any ordinary looking bloke can simply walk into the womens’ changing rooms at the leisure centre. As trans activists are so fond of telling us, nobody asks for your birth certificate when you enter a sex segregated space, so how are the women in that changing room supposed to know whether that ordinary looking bloke is legally a woman, let alone his intentions in being there? We are not allowed to ask if ordinary looking bloke has a GRC or not, so what do we do?

It’s an open door policy. Maybe not by the letter of the law, but the door is not being applied right now, in fact many places are moving to self ID a head of the law, so any single sex exemptions are effectively being circumvented, contrary to the single sex exemptions in the equality act.

Ah! I was supposed to infer by the word 'majority' that you do actually acknowledge the issues and experiences of women and girls who don't agree with you. Even though you don't talk about, or show the faintest concern about their needs or how to meet them or whether this process should take them into account in some way. When silly me, I was using the word 'utter' to indicate 'sheer' and 'extreme' lack of caring instead of imply you hadn't recognised the fact of the existence of that population.

Got it. Need to hang on your every word and inference a whole lot more, clearly.