The risks of repealing rights... debate

Women aren't having any difficulties identifying each other, either. Difference being that men are being allowed their accurate definitions and identifications, whereas women are having them removed.

if you are not allowed to define 'women' in a meaningful way, then the same applies to 'men'.

I don't disagree except that this doesn't seem to have affected men in quite the same way. Men appear to be able to identify other men quite easily - hence transmen not being eligible for the priesthood; inherited rights and gay saunas amongst other things.

That has to hurt, Empress
I can't imagine having put time, effort and trust into them and now having to see them as they are now!

I remember coming out of my house sometime in the early 2000s & seeing a SOME PEOPLE ARE LESBIANS: GET OVER IT poster & it made my day.

If anything I suppose I'm just grateful that I did my coming out 20-odd years ago when Stonewall were still an LGB rights organisation, not a bunch of homophobes.

*Define 'men'.

I think we all know what men are. Just like we all know what women are.*

Of course we do. But the way things are going language is becoming meaningless.

if you are not allowed to define 'women' in a meaningful way, then the same applies to 'men'.

So, is repealing the rights of trans people what I want? Is that what "we" want?

I want GRA 2004 heavily modified to recognise that some of the legal changes for which it was brought into being have now been achieved so much of it can now be declared redundant. E.g., same-sex marriage; equality of state pension age.

The remainder of GRA 2004 reads mostly like legal fictions. The current crop of GRC-holders will need to be provided with continuity of those legal fictions but they should not be granted to others.

The Men being the blindingly obvious, biology based human beings, of course!

That has to hurt, Empress

I can't imagine having put time, effort and trust into them and now having to see them as they are now!

I used to read Spare Rib, so I suppose it would be akin to Rosie Boycott suddenly asking for all women to be SAHMs, to give the men a decent chance!

Define 'men'.

I think we all know what men are. Just like we all know what women are.

Samphire, I used to have a standing order to Stonewall & also volunteered with them occasionally in the old days.

You wouldn't believe how much I loathe them & all they stand for now - along with Diva, which used to be a lesbian mag before it sold out too .

Yes and hasn't Julie Bindel hinted that wasn't always the case at the beginning with Ruth?

I need more cynicism, Empress That is so obviously what happened

Stonewall seems to have lost its collective mind and has been ensuring that the transwoman message has been accepted without much of a demur

I wouldn't say Stonewall's lost its mind. I'd say that once gay marriage was achieved, Ruth Hunt et al made a cold, hard decision to ditch any principles they might previously have had & sell out to the TRAs in order to keep themselves in business.

Yes, exactly. Once any definitions are made impossible by tying everyone's language in knots, it's impossible to have boundaries of any kind.

Bearing in mind that many of the front line extremist TRAs are anarchists, this is quite intentional. And as I frequently say, with care, consideration for the meaning of my language and word choices, Fuck That.

The point has been raised that you therefore can't admit some men while excluding others.

Define 'men'.

Incidentally there already has been some noises made about transwomen's access to women's spaces being discriminatory towards men in a legally indefensible way, since once any male born person at any time can change sex without any requirement of diagnosis or even change of appearance there is nothing to distinguish between a transwoman and any other man. The point has been raised that you therefore can't admit some men while excluding others.

I think this situation was utterly predictable and, were I a man, I might be inclined to challenge it on these grounds just for the purpose of highlighting the ridiculousness of hte whole thing.

Because it's the exact same point we have been arguing.

Yeah, I think (in hindside) allowing legal sex change was the First step on a slippery Slope to women Losing their protections. I also think, this would have been manageable/not a big deal. Had it remained strictly linked to sex reassignment surgery. However, this strict link was at least in one European country overruled by the European courts, which imo opened pandora‘s Box.
So I am not sure, whether repealing the GRC could equally be overruled?

Incidentally there already has been some noises made about transwomen's access to women's spaces being discriminatory towards men in a legally indefensible way, since once any male born person at any time can change sex without any requirement of diagnosis or even change of appearance there is nothing to distinguish between a transwoman and any other man. The point has been raised that you therefore can't admit some men while excluding others.

The whole situation is one massive legal fuck up in multiple directions, the consequences of which are going to make a Carry On film look like Panorama. It just baffles me our political class really are apparently this naiive, lazy about due diligence and basic reseach, and too thick to see ahead.

But then this is the political class that let Brexit happen. Sometimes I suspect the country would be far better run by the committee of a village playgroup.

What is the point of single gender facilities?

In practice, it would allow male born people to access some facilities and services alongside women, under the 'name' of woman as their self chosen identity without it obliterating women as a sex class/removing all women's access to single sex provision. It would be in practice an obfustication as there is no such thing as a single gender (do you classify it as people with long hair, high heels and lipstick?) but is a compromise that is middle ground - for example making some refuges single gender with the expectation for all users that transwomen will use them alongside women, while others remain single sex where only women users can take places. There are women on the boards here (and Layla moran as another example) who spend a lot of time saying how much they don't care about getting naked with strange men or having intimate medical care by any male who wants to do it, so there are women who would be happy to choose single gender provisions which are in effect mixed sex spaces while excluding men who still identify as men. Sigh. However it would be interesting to then watch the facts and figures of how many women in practice continue to use the single sex provisions and how many women are not willing to take up mixed gender places. I suspect it would very quickly demonstrate that many service users will not use the service unless single sex provision is available to them. This is evidence women urgently need.

So basically it's a temporary compromise in my eyes. It prevents the eradication of single sex spaces, it respects that some women cannot and will not use mixed sex spaces, and it also gives some middle ground to transwomen in meeting needs without letting biological sex and sex protections cease to be a thing. It may also help generate some really crucial and inescapable data for the terminally Woke who fund and provide services.

which in practice will mean any male who enters any female space since no one will check this at the door, the person will be assumed to be self declaring by the very act of entering

This is the crucial bit that gets overlooked when it's talked about. No one will ask to see GRCs. At the moment, any male who wanders into a female space can be challenged and escorted out. With an increase in the number of 'women' who have made no effort at all to change their masculine appearance/presentation, and a removal of the expectation that males will attempt to present 'femininely', there will be no way to challenge or remove men from the area.

People have already reported men being challenged who have replied "I identify as a woman" and there it ends. And the law hasn't even been changed yet!

I really don't understand the current political drive for the GRA...

The motivations are a concern for a lot of people. I think in some cases, it's just 'sport'. People have 'picked a side' and are fighting for it and they don't intend to lose. In some cases, it's a misunderstanding of who exactly comes under the umbrella of being 'trans'. In some cases, it is a targetted effort by misogynists who resent the rights women have gained over recent years and who seek to remove/undermine these my any means. In some cases, it is people who would not be granted a GRC under the current system because their intentions etc give those granting GRCs cause for concern. In some cases, it is people who don't really have anything else interesting to say about themselves and so have decided that this is their thing. I'm sure there are more. In some cases, it will be a deliberate attempt to circumvent safeguarding principles.

As for the politicians etc backing it, I think some of them fall into the groups above. I think there is a lack of understanding of who is seeking these changes; I think there is a desire to be seen as progressive and I think there is a fear of the power some of the activists wield.

or why so many women seem so gung ho to get it passed?

This one baffles me too.

Again, I think there is naivite about who is seeking the changes and their reasons for it. I think that there are some women who really do believe in a female 'essence' - there is an AIBU thread at the moment about a 4 year old's birthday party where one of the mums wants football rather than painting to be offered because boys need to be allowed to be boys.

I have a friend who is a firm believer in boy brains and girl brains. When presented with a boy who likes 'girl' things, she explains that by way of his brain being "a little bit of both".

Some people have accepted the stereotypes as fact and truly believe these and so any man who says he is a woman because he likes wearing make up etc must be a woman.

There is also fear.

There is also misogyny - why would any man say he is a woman if he isn't? I mean, the shame of it. He's already suffered enough by not being a 'real man' so we must welcome him into the fold of womanhood.

Some women will defer to men over everything. Again, you only have to read the Relationships boards where women have believed the most improbable excuses for poor behaviour from men.

Some women have huge overwhelming compassion and believe men are hopeless creatures who need rescuing from themselves/society/wily women...

And then there's the female socialisation thing where many women will put their own needs aside in the interests of "just being nice".

Transwomen have never had the right to use womens toilets, they were simply accorded a politeness: we women pretended we hadn't noticed and they believed that they 'passed'.

All that has happened to change that is that the GRA made it legal for a specific set of transwomen to use womens toilets, mainly because no woman ever stood up and said "No!" and forced the law to make a decision on whose rights would be upheld when 2 people with protected characteristic came into conflict.

Now, with the new much more 'inclusive' and aggressive definition of transwoman and the actions of many TRAs women are now saying "No!".

Sadly we are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay behind the bus and are having to play catch up. That is really hard when a hitherto well respected organisation like Stonewall seems to have lost its collective mind and has been ensuring that the transwoman message has been accepted without much of a demur, so far!

Points to remember:

1. TRAs never remember to include transmen, it is ALL about what transwomen want - and they want to be WOMAN!
2. The new definition of 'trans' is no longer based on anything other than a 'feeling' a whim, more like a fashion than the existing definition used in the GRA! Self ID will enshrine that 'feeling' in law.
3. No rights are being removed, women are just refusing to continue being accommodating. Transwomen would like that to be a crime.

knicknack I see what you mean with your (1) and (2) but the idea of making some facilities and services single gender while ring fencing others as single sex seems untenable, given that gender (identity? presentation?) and sex are always and everywhere being conflated and confused.

The point of single sex facilities is protect the dignity, privacy and safety of women & girls and allow them access to the public realm.

What is the point of single gender facilities?

Female along with religious/philosophical rights were removed in 2004. We don't have a right to refuse to believe what others believe anymore because of trans hate crime.