Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Is it really all that bad?

158 replies

Notevenmyrealname · 20/12/2018 18:14

I was having a conversation today with a friend who works in HR and is very clued up on the law and equality issues and he was saying that most of the scare stories about transgender stuff are a storm in a teacup. Realistically nobody is going to allow a small group of militant trans activists to remove women’s rights. All the updated GRA will do will allow people who need it a slightly less hassle way to change their gender officially and as it affects such a small number of people (supposedly 1% of the population) it’s really not going to have a massive impact on the vast majority of people. There are no plans to change the Equality Act of 2010, so sex will still be a protected category.
I’ve been trying to read up on lots of stuff over the last month or so and, I have to be honest, really scared myself - particularly reading all the BS spouted by Mermaids. The thought that those people are let loose in schools peddling their pseudoscience to teachers is awful, but again my friend thinks the stuff that gets reported in newspapers is always the worst of the worst as they just want clicks on their pages and I shouldn’t get myself wound up.
I’m actually going to give myself a break from all this over the next few weeks as it’s really getting to me but I was wondering if anyone else thought maybe things won’t be as bad as all the worst case scenarios that are discussed on these boards?
I’m still very much of the belief that gender identity and biological sex are separate things and I think if something could be put in law that makes that distinction clear, surely everything would be fine. Stupid ideology like the crap pushed by Mermaids and the like will be found out eventually and it’s just because they’re riding the wave with the GRA consultation having happened so recently. Teachers are regularly updated on safeguarding and the secrecy aspect would only apply if they thought the child was in actual danger (he gave the example of an extremely religious family who might try taking their child abroad to marry them off or worse, they were from a culture that commit “honour” killings).
Please reassure me that these worst case scenarios are unlikely to happen, or is my friend actually oblivious to very real dangers if these changes go through?

OP posts:
Mariotta · 22/12/2018 09:30

I know many will disagree but I think it will be necessary to concede access to TS people as per EA and GRC.

No. EqA is a hopeless piece of legislation all-round for all the protected characteristics, and is due for updating as per the recent government consultation. When it is, the conflation of sex and gender needs to be removed, women's rights reinstated and gender reassignment rights and protections need to be distinct from women's rights and protections. Many of us will be fighting for this.

Yes, we may need to grandfather rights given to current GRC holders, but that's all.

Datun · 22/12/2018 09:20

Laws are easily added to but rarely are they revoked.

Oh dear. Equal pay laws, property laws, mortgage rules, credit card rules, rape within marriage law, education law, sex discrimination law etc.

All these required current law to be changed. By women.

Allowing a subset of men to access women's rights, but not the rest of men, is utterly unworkable.

The answer is no.

DisrespectfulAdultFemale · 22/12/2018 09:14

stop linking genitalia to our likes and dislikes

concede access to TS people as per EA and GRC

What the actual fucking fuck?

Never.

givenupcaring · 22/12/2018 08:38

Trouble is, the GRA 2004 tells us that a man with a GRC is now legally and to all intents and purposes a woman.

Is that really the big issue though ? Under 4000 people in nearly 15 years have a GRC and obviously there will be those within that who have left the country or died so what are we talking..... 1 in 15,000 people max. Can you honestly that before TG nonsense you ever noticed a TS person ?

Stonewall say they anticipate 500,000 people with GRC under new changes. A factor of 12500% increase.

Honestly and I know many will disagree but I think it will be necessary to concede access to TS people as per EA and GRC. It's already laid down in law and it's a small number. By revoking access , quite understandably, it is used as a weapon to paint women as grossly unreasonable and uncaring. Laws are easily added to but rarely are they revoked. One need only look at some of the bizarre laws that still exist for hundreds of years ago that make absolutely no sense!

This has all become a game sadly. Many have suggested that sexual dominance plays a big part in modern ideology. I believe that is indeed true. Therefore when women get so angry and upset (rightly so) with the situation it send out the wrong message.... the message that women are scared and worried for their safety. When someone says "I want to dominate you" and what they are hearing back is "please dont you're scaring me" is that not a reinforcement ? When women send out the message "we object to the EA and GRC because women weren't consulted and we didn't give permission " then once again what is heard is that men were able to dominate and women were submissive.

So what is the solution. The head and the heart disagree on this but I have to go with my head. We absolutely fight against childhood brainwashing by mermaids - it's about safeguarding. We equally fight again self id and demedicalisation.
However we reluctantly accept / tolerate / honour system sharing spaces with TS people as we have done for decades; we show empathy for those with GD in transition. We stand alongside TS and argue for increased medicalisation and psychiatric and psychological support.

We work to stop gender stereotyping and stop linking genitalia to our likes and dislikes. Last week when Christmas shopping for my daughter I was still faced with science sets that were "for boys" and craft activities that were clearly only "for girls".

Datun · 22/12/2018 06:58

The school said sorry. The mother confronted Stella Creasy on Twitter. Creasy called it peer on peer assault. She said the girl could have counselling. The mother said, I don't want counselling for her, I want you to tell me how this can be prevented.

Creasy couldn't.

deepwatersolo · 22/12/2018 03:03

Oh, wasn‘t that the case pointed out to that one politician, who then wormed her way out with the ‚peer on peer‘ assault gimmick instead of acknowledging it was a male on female assault? Just looked it up. Stella Creasy was confronted with it on Twitter.

Not sure what you mean by ‚a school would never tolerate this‘. It is not like they have a squad team in the changing room to prevent this plus a high resolution camera plus biometrics to unambigously document arousal levels plus their source (all the men I know say erections can happen randomly at times. Will transgirls be punished for that as soon as girls are present?)

NonExistentFox · 22/12/2018 02:43

Yes, this. ^

MargueritaPink · 22/12/2018 00:38

I’d tell him about the 11 year old girl who was traumatised by the 14 year old trans girl masterbating in the school girls changing room. School said there was nothing they could do and the girls mother was called a transphobe on social media for complaining

Where did this happen? A school would not tolerate a boy masturbating in public in the boys' gym or a girl masturbating in public in the girls' gym. It is irrelevant what sex or gender the person claims to be- it is still indecent behaviour.

NonExistentFox · 22/12/2018 00:28

The same penis which if exposed to her at the bus stop would presumably still be a police matter?

Um, I think all our genitals would be equally guilty under this interpretation of the law. Possession of a sexual organ is not a crime; using it to cause alarm or distress is.

BubonicTheHedgehag · 22/12/2018 00:22

If men can identify themselves, via self-ID, into the so-called protected category of "woman", then true "woman" ceases to exist, because men can identify as women, without any of the features and drawbacks of having an actual female body.

Trouble is: women are and have been historically for millennia oppressed by men because they are women. Nothing at all to do with how they identify. It's because they have female biology. Which transwomen do not have.

Annandale · 22/12/2018 00:14

'nobody is going to allow a small group of militant trans activists to remove women’s rights'

Ask him to explore what he has said a bit more.

Who is he thinking of when he says 'nobody'?

What would he think of as an event that would look like the removal of women's rights?

He might think of something like the removal of 'sex' as a protected characteristic under the Equalities Act. But that's not what is going to happen (or not yet, anyway). Instead, just redefine what a woman is. There! How do you define women's rights if anybody can be a woman? Why would a woman need rights anyway, if anybody can be a woman?

The government is publishing documents defining biological sex as something 'assigned at birth' by a medical practitioner. The Minister for Equalities, and the consultation document, said that the starting point for the GRA consultation was that transwomen are women. BBC journalists say things like 'there are a lot of grey areas' about people conceived male competing in women's sport. An NHS service received a request for a female practitioner for a smear test, said that they WOULD provide a woman practitioner, and then sent in a person conceived male who aimed to present as a woman.

What 'authorities' does he think are left to decide whether or not to 'allow' anything? This is being DONE.

Ereshkigal · 22/12/2018 00:00

Gendered Intelligence suggested to service providers, backed by the EHRC that it's not possible to exclude MTFs from female spaces.

Ereshkigal · 21/12/2018 23:58

However, I don’t see how this is being extended to treating transwomen as women.

Ask that question to Gendered Intelligence who wrote the government guidance as a sop to people who wanted the sex exemptions removed from the EA and "non binary" gender identities recognised in law.

Ereshkigal · 21/12/2018 23:54

Unexpected, seemingly impossible events happen in history all the time. Sadly, we all have good reason to fear the erosion of/assault on women's rights that's going on as we speak today.

Well said. Excellent post.

FloralBunting · 21/12/2018 23:50

GrinGrinGrin

Ereshkigal · 21/12/2018 23:48

He's talking as if he's completely a full risk assessment of the situation, when he has, in fact, just said what he thinks based on his knowledge and imagination.

No! Surely not! That doesn't sound like a man at all WinkGrin

BubonicTheHedgehag · 21/12/2018 23:40

EqA 2010 gives sex as one of the protected characteristics. Yes, women (among others) are protected. Yipee!

Trouble is, the GRA 2004 tells us that a man with a GRC is now legally and to all intents and purposes a woman.

Hence, now (and this is the important bit) they come within the "woman" protected characteristic. Because they have a GRC and are now a woman. These men are now women. They are included in the EqA2010 definition of "woman".

Self-ID is this, the same - but on steroids. No gatekeeping at all. A man IS a woman if they say they are a woman. End of. #nodebate

It is a fucking travesty of law and reality,

starcrossedseahorse · 21/12/2018 22:37

Absolutely they will. Starting with people like LOJ. Confused

Mariotta · 21/12/2018 22:29

Thing is Star that all these people swallowing this crap, when the shit hits the fan, will deny their blanket acceptance of what us essentially a very harmful cult. It will be a case of ‘nothing to do with me mate.’

Worse, they'll all be scalp hunting the other way so that nobody remembers what they said and did.

Imissgmichael · 21/12/2018 22:12

Thing is Star that all these people swallowing this crap, when the shit hits the fan, will deny their blanket acceptance of what us essentially a very harmful cult. It will be a case of ‘nothing to do with me mate.’

starcrossedseahorse · 21/12/2018 21:35

Yes and even more shocking on a teaching forum where the risks to children should be able to be discussed openly by responsible and intelligent adults.
It is not allowed to discuss ROGD or anything related to trans really. It is a blanket shut down with any transgressions triggering a huge influx of complaints from TRAs as the posts get flagged up to them.

Imissgmichael · 21/12/2018 21:28

It beggars belief doesn’t it starcross that women and little girls aren’t seen as vulnerable and don’t really matter.

Original poster
Notevenmyrealname · 21/12/2018 21:12

Meant to say obviously he would. Proofread before posting.

OP posts:
starcrossedseahorse · 21/12/2018 21:12

Noteven he could well be genuine in his ignorance of the full picture. I am on a well known teaching forum and watched a thread get pulled the other day as a few men were aghast at the idea that a man with a cock could/would ever be called a woman. They just didn't believe it would happen. These men were not anti-women at all, just completely ignorant of what is happening because it has all been so under the radar and, crucially, still is.

The thread was pulled as the forum protects 'vulnerable minorities' from criticism!

Imissgmichael · 21/12/2018 20:26

I’d tell him about the 11 year old girl who was traumatised by the 14 year old trans girl masterbating in the school girls changing room. School said there was nothing they could do and the girls mother was called a transphobe on social media for complaining. I saw one post stated that girls masturbate so what was the problem.

Now I don’t know if it’s true but allegedly this trans girl had previously been suspended for sending pictures of their genitalia to schoolgirls and allegedly he no longer identifies as trans.