Holy crap I've approached friends about GRA and now I'm crapping myself a bit!

But, LangCleg, is it your kids or R0wantrees' family that has the inestimable advantage of being powered by Bird's Eye Waffles?

LOLs! Not mine. Mine got the Weetabix Banana Horror.

On a serious note: it's the authoritarianism and general negativity of woke and SJW culture that infuriated them. Hence made them, even though they are boys, very open to GC feminist arguments.

Ok bit of help needed here. I'm looking for a shirt/top that I can wear in public and not get my face panned in (I work next to a large uni - and from what I can see of the meeting/speech posters around here, is full of useful idiots/hipster right-on dudes).

I cant really wear anything too controversial as work won't allow it. I'm thinking something more subversive. No swears...

Any ideas? Even suffragette colours would be nice.

daymay

Well, that's very forward-thinking of her, good to know that she's not prepared to even listen.

What kind of fucked up timeline are we living in here?

...The petition also asks us to acknowledge that there is a conflict between trans rights and ‘sex based women’s rights’. We do not and will not acknowledge this...

Ruth Hunt from Stonewall in response to the petition reported in the Times today.

What will these mums (for its often the Mums) do when their child turns around and says "what the hell were you thinking? You have literally ruined my life and had me surgically changed because you were scared I was gay? What am I now?"? Then sues them.

It’s going to take some damaged women and children as collateral damage and there will be no joy in saying ‘I told you so’.

Sadly yes, Nickname. :(

Dammit I can't do click links but the mirror is running 'the true story behind butterfly' with you know who. Kid was taken to the US for the op apparently (yes we know). At the bottom is advice to speak to - you know the campaigner 'charity'.

I'm cross.

Ok yes thank you I was trying to condense what my point was to make sure it was concise. Sounds like I’m understanding it mostly correctly!

Responding to the OP — no time to read all the rest. Well done. I started this process months ago in some cases and people have gone eyeing me dubiously and saying 'hmmm, I would never have thought of you as a transphobe' to texting me to ask for help to fill in the consultation form. In fact I'm getting together with another group of women this weekend. They've opened up the consultation document, had a panic because they can't understand it, and come to me for help. So we're going to have cake and wine and they'll fill it in on their laptops and we'll discuss it and they then can go out as ambassadors, armed with leaflets, to peak trans friends, neighbours and colleagues.

You won't be able to challenge man in the ladies. If they are classified as a 'lady' with a willy then that makes it all very confusing.

Yes, some men will use this to their advantage to follow women into spaces that were previously women only (loos, changing rooms, refuges, hey even prisons!).

Some boys will throw on a teeny gymslip and paste the girls on the track. Then all get into the showers.

Join the guides and sleep in same tent at your daughter. But that's OK - he's a 15 year old girl with erm, 'the usual' male morning occurrences. Nothing to see here girls. It's a pefectly normal girl erection.

Kids who are just boring old gay will be told that they literally can magically become the other sex. Don't like pink Sally? You must be a little boy then! Gender stereotyping gone Crazy!

Women will be abused, raped, felt up, peeved at and generally feel unsafe - but then I'm sure the police will be swift and mighty with their action should a crime be comforted (not - more likely the woman will be told off for being transphobic) but that's OK though.

Only women and children will be hurt - you dont really hear of many f2m fakers do you?

Is the main issue that they want to change the law so that a man (or a woman )

The implications go far beyond that (such as the number of world records in women's sports that are now held by trans women; that all-women shortlists are open to trans women and various organisations have stated that they'd be happy with a Parliament that is 50% men and 50% trans women) but your overview is accurate.

Maybe watch Dr Nic's video for a quick overview of the GRA proposed changes? Linked off this page.

fairplayforwomen.com

Or a woman bit should be changing to
A man obviously

Right I’m going to put myself as ignorant here. Is the main issue that they want to change the law so that a man (or a woman ) can just say they’re a woman and that’s just taken as fact and they can then access female changing rooms / community groups / prisons / refuges etc????

My DH has started talking about this to male colleagues - he says that TW TRAs couldn't argue with men about this because they share a 'bro code' and would be called out immediately. They can argue with women because they can accuse them of not being inclusive etc, etc.
They have also discussed how they would be very supportive of women who felt uncomfortable around pushy 'people' (not TW trying to live quiet lives) trying to gain access to women's private spaces.

My kids were like this (although they were quite public about it).

But, LangCleg, is it your kids or R0wantrees' family that has the inestimable advantage of being powered by Bird's Eye Waffles?

but they were seeing the societies being taken over by trans issues and the cotton ceiling pressure unfolding so they had already peak-transed but weren't able to be public about it

My kids were like this (although they were quite public about it).

I started talking to family and friends about this over two years ago. I was so shocked at how anti-science and open to abuse self-id was that I just assumed the people closest to me would feel the same way. And, in general, they did.
My nieces and nephews are super-trendy, campaigning students, members of the LGBT societies, etc, but they were seeing the societies being taken over by trans issues and the cotton ceiling pressure unfolding so they had already peak-transed but weren't able to be public about it.
My DH started from a place of 'live and let live' until I explained the implications of self-id ie male bodies in female spaces. He's since peak-transed quite few of his friends too.
It's why I find the TRAs on Twitter so fascinating. They think the echo chamber they've created is representative but actually in RL, nearly everyone I've spoken to about this knows that the emperor has no clothes.

The Government is clear that there will be no change to the Equality Act 2010, which allows service

Yet, as you know and has been said here time and time again, Stonewall, the head of the relevant division of Cambridge Council, are all stating it's their objective to use changes to the GRA 2004 to rationalise and update the out-of-date EA 2010 and specifically its single-sex exemptions.

I attended the WPUK event. It was correct, respectful, enlightening & uplifting. When the government's telling us to discuss this, bigots who shut us down are illegal, despicable & arseholes.

In a nutshell, you've summarised Kirkup's argument (see today's Spectator piece). :) When you close down moderate avenues for discussion and debate then only populism and extreme shouty viewpoints are left.

The fact sheet says

There will be no change to the provision of women-only spaces and services
The Government is clear that there will be no change to the Equality Act 2010, which allows service
providers to offer separate services to males and females, or to one sex only, subject to certain criteria.
These services can treat people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment differently,
or exclude them completely, but only where the action taken is a proportionate means of achieving a
legitimate aim. Importantly, a service provider’s starting point should be to treat a trans person in the
gender they identify with, and to allow them to access services for that gender unless by doing so they
would be unable to provide that service to other service users. This means it can’t be a blanket ban,
or done on a whim. It has to be for a real reason, on a case by case basis. For example a female only
domestic violence refuge may provide a separate service to a trans woman if it can be shown there is
a detriment to other service users from including the trans woman as part of the regular service. If they
then have to exclude that trans person, they ought to consider what alternatives they can offer to the
trans person. This has been the law since 2010 and will not change

What is the response to that as presumably this is a key issie? Presumably if a trans woman says she is a woman, no one will dare question her.

At least in June, it seems to have been true according to Guido order-order.com/2018/06/11/libdem-policy-transphobic-call-ian-huntley-ian-huntley

I thought the Huntley thing wasn't true?

Mentioning Ian Huntley is generally a fast track way to peak trans anybody.

This just isn’t making it into Joe Public’s consciousness. It is slowly filtering down. Everyone needs to know that 85% of trans women are functioning males; that self-id is already having consequences.

But when the mainstream This Morning does what it did on Friday, making a mockery of an actual woman’s concerns and presenting a trans woman who is not only appropriating womanhood, but specifically chose to appropriate ‘demure woman’ for the purposes of skewing the debate, most people aren’t going to see what all the fuss is about.

It’s going to take some damaged women and children as collateral damage and there will be no joy in saying ‘I told you so’.

And yes, it might ‘never happen’ but you can guarantee that it won’t happen because women will change their behaviour to make sure it doesn’t.

Good for you for speaking out.

ifnot I think you're right. Every time I discuss it online, it's always YOU HATE TRANSPEOPLE or YOU THINK ALL TRANSPEOPLE ARE PERVERTS which is just mad, but people don't read, don't think about what they're saying and have no concept of ever changing their mind.

I think the focus has to be on what do we mean by trans.
Most people think it still means transsexual (gay man with tragic gender dysphoria, had, or is waiting, for an op).
So, it's best to establish what Stonewall and other establishment bodies mean (including cross dressers and fetishists) and that the definition has basically broadened to mean almost anyone at all.

Then I think it's important to state that noone is saying trans people are more likely to be perverts, but if the criteria for being a woman is just saying so, then how do we as women know which men are dodgy and which are not?

Basically if you want every single sex service you use to be unisex then don't protest, otherwise tell the government why you don't want that.

Then get out the Karen White story just for good measure.
That's my strategy anyway.