Isn't Helen Webberley still prevented from providing services in UK?

I'm not afraid a minority of men may make trouble for me but what I don't quite understand is how you would propose to enforce it?

I imagine that as is happening the most vulnerable females will be protected first and single sex spaces re-established.
Women's right to safety, dignity & privacy in hospitals and prisons will likely be enforced first. The NHS & MoJ should have accurate indentifying information about patients prioners & staff. This is a matter of Safeguarding & Duty of Care for all concerned.
The policies which prioritised the wants/needs of males who identify as women will be reviewed of course.

Now would seem a good time to stop making demands of women & to support those making pragmatic proposals.
Lord Lucas started this debate in the House of Lords recently.

"We're going to do it anyway even though we know you don't like it, and you can't stop us"

Yup. Not a shred of empathy, not a glimmer of self-reflection, not a moment of realisation how this tramples over women's boundaries. Just more "well tough shit, you can't stop us".

We don't want to police anyone's genitals. We want decent men - including decent transwomen - to STAY OUT. If all the decent men did that, we could feel confident in calling out, challenging, calling Security or the police on the others - because they wouldn't be decent men, they'd be in our spaces for nefarious purposes. And we'd feel confident we'd be supported in doing so, not called transphobes or bigots. Other than that I honestly don't care where you go, third spaces or men's spaces - it's not my problem. Just take some personal responsibility to do the right thing and respect women's boundaries. And if you won't do that, then you're not as decent as you like to think yourself.

All adults have the responsibility to the Safeguarding of children & Vulnerable Adult.

It is rather astonishing to read that some adult males are stating that they will continue to breech a single-sex safeguard unless women can police it 24/7.

When the two young girls were assaulted by a transwoman in Scottish supermarkets women's loos, I rather thought that decent adults in the trans community woud take a step back, consider the implications of policies and be more proactive rather than demanding for themselves.

It is not the job of women to police men. It is the job of men to stay out of women's spaces.

It is enforced by people knowing their biological sex and going into the appropriate single sex space for their sex, the way it has always been. If they are uncomfortable with that, then they should use the unisex space that we should be campaigning for. There is no need for ID or checks. This has always been the system and has always been supported. It is what allows women and men to challenge someone of the opposite sex in their loo and why people feel embarrassed/uncomfortable if they get it wrong. Current trans ideology is trying to break that social contract and normalise the presence of men in women's spaces and vice versa.

I recognise that there is a potential issue with transmen using women's loos, because they tend to pass very well (albeit usually as boys/young men).

Or to précis "We're going to do it anyway even though we know you don't like it, and you can't stop us"

Onltthetip

I do get it. I understand if I'm right that your opinion appear to be that access to an single sex space should be determined by what was recorded on the paperwork by the midwife in the delivery suite et.al

I'm not afraid a minority of men may make trouble for me but what I don't quite understand is how you would propose to enforce it? The main space where this occurs numbers wise surely has to be a public toilet. In the absence of genital checks which quite a number of us would pass and without the risk of ostracizing some females who don't meet a particular feminine enough standard I'm not sure how you would go about enforcing it? That said I'm also not overly confident that all the GC minded people in the world would welcome very butch trans men with bald heads and beards into their space. But, if so couldn't that also then lead to men claiming to be trans men? All of which suggests the only way to achieve your aim without question would be to force all trans people into a third space and require them to carry some form of ID e.g. A badge.

Rather than preventing men offending against women, having a wide ranging legislation against trans women can demonise a small subset of people without having the intended effect.

You don't get it. We are not objecting to transwomen in our spaces. We are objecting to men in our spaces. Transwomen are men. Ergo, TW are included in the 'no men' boundary. We do not object to you trying to use our spaces because you are trans. We object to you trying to use our spaces because you are male.

It can start with spaces and given the right conditions move on to identity badges and it tends to go down hill from there.

No. Female-only spaces continue being female-only spaces as they have been for years. Not female? Not your space. Nobody needs a badge, nobody needs a star, nobody needs anything except to respect the fact that if you're born male you use the male spaces, regardless of how you choose to identify. And if there's an issue there because men have problems sharing their spaces with feminine-presenting men, that's an issue for you to take up with men. Why are you allowed to be afraid of a minority of men who might make trouble for you, but women are not afforded the same courtesy?

*conflicts with women's rights

I appreciate that a transsexual is seeking to be recognised as the opposite sex and that people noticing that they are not that sex is difficult to deal with. It is one of the reasons why I do not think that transition is a good idea until all other options have been exhausted. However, one of my big problems with the whole thing is that we are perpetuating the idea that being a transwoman or transman is something that should be hidden. It appears that the reason for this is fear of discrimination and/or shame if the truth is discovered. This idea is reflected in Goodwin and the GRA. The way found to deal with that discrimination/shame was to allow people to legally change sex and legally to hide their past.

Surely we should be aiming for a situation where transsexuals are accepted as what and who they are, with the concomitant understanding that for transsexuals it is appropriate to use pronouns of the opposite sex and to treat them as the opposite sex (whatever that means in a particular circumstance), except when to do so conflicts. One good thing about the current climate is that we are creating a generation that is much more accepting of difference, gender non-conformity and transpeople (it has just gone off in a crazy direction) and we should be much better placed to aim towards eradication of prejudice and discrimination. It just seems to me sensible to aim for a situation where no-one has to hide, lie or use tortuous language, but transsexuals do not have to worry about having their gender dysphoria unnecessarily exacerbated by being referred to/treated as their birth sex.

In the mean time some men are continuing to rape and beat their wives at home in huge numbers, touch women (including trans women)

And now the TRAs want to give these violent men a way in to womens safe spaces so they can continue to abuse women.

OnlyTheTit

I understand where you are coming from with regards to safeguarding and trans people working with vulnerable groups such as those who work in healthcare, social services and law enforcement are all subjected to the same enhanced DBS checks as everyone else. Once you have a record even without a conviction you will have a file on the PNC. For most it's hard in these circumstances to hide a trans history. Even upon a name change and possession of a GRC the new name will only ever be recorded as an alias on the PNC with your original name or name given upon arrest (file name) being the main name on the file. For me, the answer to getting around anyone lying on a DBS is to subject everybody filling one out to a finger print check and DNA swab. Of course there is always someone who has never offended before but then in this particular case we are getting into the realms of legislating for what you might do? Everyone who has been arrested should have their prints and DNA profile on file. I believe many police forces do this for their officers and staff anyway as a way of their SOCO easily eliminating them from a crime scene.

I'm personally just not comfortable with altering wide ranging legislation based on outliers. Imagine if we banned all middle aged white middle class male drivers due to their propensity for driving home from the pub in the shires because the chance of seeing the police are negligible?

Personally, I can't say I have a huge need to use single sex spaces but, I do believe in them and understand that there is a need for them. I believe the answer is to ensure there are alternatives available. I wouldn't be seen dead in a public changing room unless it had single lockable cubicles and many public places I visit have accessible toilets. In fact there is a great one (if a toilet can ever be great) at the top of the stairs in Victoria station (The London one) that is labelled accessible/gender neutral. Since they were done up this one is always very clean. I do on occasion use the ladies if I'm caught short but, public toilets I generally avoid as I'm a bit OCD about cleanliness. But, I donworry that history suggests compelled third spaces don't often work out well for the minority concerned. It's very easy to demonise a minority with a few well placed stories about the minority of bad ones amongst them. Male violence is a huge problem but, this debate can often give the impression that the problem is trans people in general. In the mean time some men are continuing to rape and beat their wives at home in huge numbers, touch women (including trans women) inappropriately on public transport with little or no consequence to them and seemingly getting a free pass as the spot light is on trans women. Rather than preventing men offending against women, having a wide ranging legislation against trans women can demonise a small subset of people without having the intended effect. It can start with spaces and given the right conditions move on to identity badges and it tends to go down hill from there. It's a difficult one and I understand that my personal circumstances mean that my opinion is not likely to main stream on this thread but, it is only an opinion and I wouldn't be caught making any demands.

but you sat back and did nothing when the TRAs started making demands and threats to women and stomping all over our boundaries. You were supporting them back then...

Many trans rights activists were/are transsexuals.
Women's boundaries have been disregarded by some (whether TS, TG or Dr) in pursuit of trans rights for decades.

I’m middle aged, perimenopausal, and round here you have to practically crawl into the GPs begging and crying to even get a blood test for possible HRT treatment - you most definitely cannot get HRT for menopause via informed consent!

Nor can younger women who have had hysterectomies due to gyny cancers.
It will take MDT meetings, testing of tumours, in depth discussions about the potential risk/benefit & a consultant who will even consider it. Not all will & GPs usually won't get involved.

aside from the sudden side effects of surgical menopause, significant increased risks for younger women in such situations include osteoporosis, heart disease etc

The only change is that before vocal and extreme trans activism started stirring up trouble, women would mostly turn a blind eye to MTF transsexuals quietly using our loos. But I’m afraid the TRAs are losing you that privilege - and it is a privilege, not a right - because of their unsafe and unreasonable demands.

The 'extreme' trans activism has been causing 'trouble in terms of detrimentally impacting Safeguarding & women's sex based rights for decades.
It simply wasnt as visible as this was happening behind closed door; lobbying policy makers or lobbying families, especially women & children.
No doubt the level of connectedness in our world has magnified both numbers & voices bringing more to awareness.

Family
www.peaktrans.org/not-woke-my-experience-as-the-child-of-a-trans-individual/
childrenoftransitioners.org/2019/11/26/reading-christine-benvenutos-sex-changes/
makemorenoisemanc.wixsite.com/mysite/post/a-plea-for-help-for-feminists-from-a-trans-widow

Policy makers:
AngryAttackKittens wrote:
"I'm going to point every "but the nice, harmless old school transsexuals whose movement has been unfairly appropriated by the nasty transgender people" person to this thread from now on.

All the same elements we're seeing now were there in that old BBC roundtable from the 70s with the 4 transwomen, the politician, and the doctor. None of this is new."

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3463920-Lets-go-back-to-2007

because of their unsafe and unreasonable demands.

And to loop this thread back on topic, those unsafe and unreasonable demands include paediatric transition and medical treatment via ‘informed consent’, which is bonkers when there are no diagnostics!

I’m middle aged, perimenopausal, and round here you have to practically crawl into the GPs begging and crying to even get a blood test for possible HRT treatment - you most definitely cannot get HRT for menopause via informed consent! Which is fair enough because it does come with elevated cancer and DVT risks.

On the other hand, women generally only take it for limited periods, 1-10 years, whereas paediatric transitioners starting cross sex hormones at 16 could be on it for 60 years! That’s not something anyone should take on without even a face to face visit with a doctor.

Just to add I was talking in a general 'you' not directed at anyone.

women would mostly turn a blind eye to MTF transsexuals quietly using our loos. But I’m afraid the TRAs are losing you that privilege

I made a similar point the other day when Robin popped in to tell us off. Women had no issue with TS using female facilities, but you sat back and did nothing when the TRAs started making demands and threats to women and stomping all over our boundaries. You were supporting them back then so dont complain when you get caught up in the pushback now.

(Obviously “tiny majority” in my first post above should read “tiny minority”.)

We get some lovely trans people posting here actually. And it makes me sad for them that the ideology is actually damaging for them. I'd never really been forced to analyse my views and where I thought it was sensible to draw a line until I was told to "educate myself".

Children, transsexuals and vulnerable women are all put at higher risk of harm to validate an ideology and it makes me desperately sad

Actually to be fair, it’s not even that we’re considering transpeople a separate group. It’s TW who are/would be legislated against, because they’re male and therefore automatically fall into the second group. The only change is that before vocal and extreme trans activism started stirring up trouble, women would mostly turn a blind eye to MTF transsexuals quietly using our loos. But I’m afraid the TRAs are losing you that privilege - and it is a privilege, not a right - because of their unsafe and unreasonable demands.

I will add, it’s been a pleasant change to engage with a transperson who doesn’t resort to screaming misogynistic invective at us for disagreeing with them and who does recognise that they are still male, so thank you for that stats.

That said, there isn't a section of society that I would support being legislated for or against based on the actions of a few outliers like Karen White.

But stats, that’s how safeguarding works.

We know the vast majority of adults wish no harm towards children but we can’t identify the tiny minority who do, so we have safeguarding based on that tiny majority.

We know the vast amount of men are not rapists or murderers but we can’t identify the tiny majority who are, so we gatekeep women’s spaces - backed up by legislation, e.g. the EA2010 - based on that tiny minority.

And similarly we know most transpeople are perfectly nice people just wanting to go peacefully through life but we can’t identify the tiny minority who don’t - complicated by the fact that self-ID potentially brings in those in the second group too - so...you get where this is going?

When I applied for my current job, I had to have a DBS check. I didn’t think “how dare they, don’t they know how law-abiding and harmless I am???” I thought “oh, they’re thorough, that’s good.”

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3836481-AIBU-about-transgender-person-taking-legal-action-against-NHS-for-allowing-her-to-transition-title-edited-by-MNHQ-on-OPs-behalf

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3804872-Keira-Bell

NHS Tavistock GIDS service is being taken to Judicial Review by Keira Bell (backed by parents & professionals who have worked within the area):

"Ms Bell's legal team will argue the centre's approach was unlawful because:

1)children could not give informed consent for this kind of treatment and

2)the potential risks of treatment were not adequately explained"

Dr Helen Webberley has been outspoken in her criticism against what she felt was the too cautious approach of the NHS service.
Dr Helen Webberley's online business 'Gender GP' was for a long ime promoted by Mermaids Charity.
Gender GP has (& presumably) continues to treat children (Under 18 years)

The findings from the JR will, one presumes, have impacts for theDrs Webberley & Mermaids childrens charity?

Just out of interest, how does one say "own goal" in a gender friendly way?

That's the sort of question that last time I answered it at this time of night, got me a strike 🤭