Government says it is too complex to make changes to the GRA to include non binary

How can we go back to the status quo? It requires a basis of trust and that has been irrecoverably broken and having been broken eyes have been opened as to how women were so completely dismissed and disregarded when the GRA was brought in.

That's the thing. We're not just talking about Stonewall's recent work. We're going right back to 2004 and before, when Stonewall was still a gay rights organisation and Press for Change managed to get the GRA through without anyone really noticing what was happening.

Blue recognises that fetishistic cross-dressers, and many males who have not had genital surgery, have a GRC

I recognise no such thing.

The process of a GRC is very much gatekept. An application must be supported by a specific NHS approved medical expert.

I do think GRC should be post op only that much is true.

women were so completely dismissed and disregarded when the GRA was brought in.

It wasn't the GRA that did that it was the Equality Act 2010.

I have female friends working in male dominated industries who had no access to toilets, e.g. on construction sites, earlier in their careers and had to push for suitable provision.

If you don’t have a suitable provision for your specific toileting needs - campaign for them. I will happily support you. Don’t steal them from others.

I don't interpret Blue's posts that way. She is arguing for the status quo. As am I. The law, (the GRA), has already been decided.

And some people think that law should change, on both sides.

Post op transsexuals with a GRC have an understanding that this gives them the right to use female sex segregated spaces and do so, however, no-one is allowed to challenge them or ask for any kind of proof that they can, nor how they are distinguishable from a mere cross dressing fetishist it has to be taken on trust and look where that leads and has led. That is what makes the whole thing totally unworkable and makes it effectively self-id in all but name, the only way to prevent the mission creep that is happening and was always going to happen is to be absolute that single sex spaces are exactly that single SEX based on biology and nothing else.

It was never acceptable for women's spaces and facilities to be given away in the manner they were with zero thought and consideration for women, women weren't asked, our consent was not sought, we were presented with a fait accompli. Men as ever deciding that women's consent is an irrelevance.

I've never understood why religious people need churches and chapels and temples.

I think I'll repurpose them all for my own interests instead.

Chesterton's Fence principle should apply here.

I simply disagree with the notion that the second one person says no that becomes a no for everyone within that class.

So what do you think should happen to the women who do say no, if the yesses override their lack of consent? Should they just stay home and never leave the house?

I don't interpret Blue's posts that way. She is arguing for the status quo. As am I. The law, (the GRA), has already been decided. It isn't changing to include non binary identities or extending to self id, as per the thread title, this is cause for celebration.

What already IS, remains. Legally. The social contract remains too (tenuously, for now).

I agree that women were not consulted when the GRA was brought in, but the Yougov polls do strongly suggest that women would vote for transitioned transexuals to share female spaces if it went to a direct vote. What you are talking about is re-negotiating the existing law and the existing social contract, which already includes transexuals.

Why are we arguing with blue lipstick.

Because we don't all have the same opinion on this. I'm sick of having my consent presumed by others.

Is it ok to say that a post op transsexual is the same as a cross dressing fetishist? All just men?

Is there an easy way to tell the difference between them? Just by looking at them?

Late to this thread. Despite the disagreements I hope our trans MNers on this thread will continue to be open and discuss with honesty - I do think it's useful to hear your experiences and I do think the discussion about where we differentiate between fully surgically transitioned TW and those for whom TW is an invisible identity is pertinent to this thread where the op is talking about other gender identities that, agree with it or not, are "under the trans umbrella".

I would imagine the general public make a woolly distinction along those lines even if those of us who've been debating it for ages come to other conclusions.

As anyone who's ever read my past posts will know, I can't get on board with appearance being a defining factor in anyone's access to/ denial of certain rights. I just can't square that with equality no matter how it might disadvantage some. There needs to be a better way.

You want female-only spaces to exist. But you think males who no longer have a penis should be allowed in. You have also said that women who don't mind sharing with males should override the objections of the women who do mind.

You refuse to accept that boundary.

Blue is certainly not on women's side. Wants us to be able to have female-only provisions, so long as Blue can decide which males can access them, even if the females disagree.

Unnecessary and uncalled for.

A difference of opinion does not warrant a character assassination.

Because Blue thinks that women's boundaries should be decided for them by people who are male.

I said no such thing.

Because Blue thinks that women's boundaries should be decided for them by people who are male.

And that is the entire fundamental problem.

Blue is certainly not on women's side. Wants us to be able to have female-only provisions, so long as Blue can decide which males can access them, even if the females disagree.

Your refusal to accept that transgender and transsexual are different

To me, that is not something that I am interested in defining myself, I don't feel like I should be in that discussion. That is for you as a person with direct personal needs to address with the organisations that are making these definitions.

yet insist on rigidly defining woman is disgusting and offensive to me.

As a female, the definition of woman directly impacts me and my child, my sisters and my mother. The fact that MALES have sought to have an alternative definition recognised in law to suit the needs of MALES is of great concern to me.

I am only interested at the moment in maintaining and strengthening the rights that female's need due to the discrimination, for millennia, they have suffered due to their sexed body. There is direct negative impacts of those rights that have been put in place to protect female's needs (however they choose to present because even transmen have had, still do, and will in the future need these).

The needs of different groups of males needs to be addressed by them, but needs to be recognised as being separate to those of females. Those needs are unique and require their own protections. It is harmful to both groups to try to shoehorn protections until existing protections for females.

Why are we arguing with blue lipstick. She is a fully medically transitioned transexual with a GRC which she obtained/went through due to severe gender dysphoria, she agrees that self id is a terrible idea and that trans women shouldn't compete in sports. She is rational and on our side. The law in its current and actual state already protects her right to access all single sex facilities based on her GRC (unless trans women have been specifically excluded for proportional reasons). She agrees with this and has no wish to access spaces where she has been specifically excluded for biological reasons. So toilets are really the only disputed territory, which she is entitled to access... legally..already.

Are we really arguing that she should loose something she already has?

But, hey. We're all entitled to our own opinions.