#RepealTheGRA apparently 'hails from the right

[quote Floisme]Any views on Lachlan Stuart's point that, if we were left with the Equality Act on its own, it could effectively mean self ID?

Sorry it won't let me screenshot but it's here:

twitter.com/Lachlan_Edi/status/1412453385819901956[/quote]
I’m not sure why he thinks repeal would mean self id. I think it certainly needs people with legal expertise to look at how the EA would function without it.

My own view, like others on this thread, is that women’s and girl’s rights need a separate Sex Discrimination Act, not least to make single sex spaces obligatory rather than optional as they are within the EA.

If we could have repeal of the GRA before breaking the EA up into separate acts, I do wonder what would happen with regard to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if a GRC was no longer a thing.

The judges in Ann Sinnott’s case seemed to claim that if a single sex space for women allows in male sex people with a GRC, they must also allow in male sex people with the PC of GR but without a GRC. But if a GRC no longer exists, or if those who already have one are allowed to keep it, but it no longer means they should be given access to women’s single sex spaces under any circumstances, why would the PC of GR give any male sex person access to any women’s spaces? If self-id does not give that right, what does it do?

Maybe Lachlan is thinking that repeal wouldn’t change access to women’s spaces, shortlists, jobs etc for those who self-id, as the right of access would still exist for those few who already have a GRC. But it would surely not be too difficult to put an end to that “right” at the same time as repealing the damn thing. Not least because encroaching on women’s rights was not what parliament thought they were voting for, when the GRA passed.

In short.

Given your name I find your post. ???. Why are you looking at stats that are impossible to tell what you are claiming?

Stats geek you of all people should know.

That those with a GRC are recorded in female stats for everything.

So. There's no way to know of any harm. At all.

Women are saying no.

That idea- anti carceral- is another one taken from another activism area with impunity. This one is from the USA and dumped here with no consideration of what it means or why it's argued.

Anti carceral over there is about the racism in arrests, prosecutions. And the massive sentences given to usually black people while white people get s slap on the wrist.

Young men locked up for 30 years for s bit of weed type thing.

The running it as a massive business. The working for free which produces a surprising amount of their economy. That fact that essentially slavery stopped but look if they're in prison we can make them work for free...

It is much more nuanced etc than just get rid of all the prisons.and it's very specific to the USA system.

Over here the equivalent would be those who say that women shouldn't be locked up for various valid reasons unless they are a danger to the public/ have committed a serious crime etc.

Considering a lot of these arses think that locking up rapists at all is right wing, I'm guessing the radar is fucked up from the start.

Agree. I posted on a thread recently that I lean right of centre and the lovely @yeahbutnaw called me a right wing extremist.

Some people simply don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

In the recent judicial review it was reported that there were at least 7 sexual assaults on female prisoners carried out by males who identified as transgender but didn't have a GRC, and an unknown number by males with a GRC (this is at least one, since the female prisoner who brought the JR was assaulted by a male with a GRC).

How many completely avoidable sexual assaults is enough to count as 'not the odd one-off case' and a 'substantial problem'? I think that even one case is too many for something which is completely avoidable.

As a 'statsgeek' you presumably have an idea of what number of assaults you consider to be significant and worth paying attention to. Tell us how many women have to be sacrificed for this cause.

I suppose it's just the deeply held societal ideas about sex offences and women, at the max.

In general sex offences go:
Trivial
Trivial
Trivial
Trivial
OMG that's totally rare and unexpected. He's a monster

And the reaction is
Don't make a fuss
Laugh it off
He didn't mean it
Well it's not assault is it if he doesn't touch you
Are you sure? You might have misinterpreted
What were you wearing? He was probably getting signals
You know what men are like
It's up to you to look after yourselves
Why were you there?

It's the same as this isn't it.

I'm right wing on some issues, and so fucking what?

my opinion still counts as much as anyone else's

and for what it's worth I think the GRA must be repealed

The amount of evidence of harm required for some people will always be n+1.

And this is specifically relevant when the harm is directed towards women who, as we know, are secondary in significance to sex offenders who wish to be housed in the female estate.

The reason we know this is because of a piece of legislation designed to help a homophobic establishment side-step equal marriage.

No. I will not support retaining legislation that started as a way to avoid changing the law so I could marry my girlfriend, and has led directly to rapists being incarcerated with women as a right.

Whine all you like. This is bad law, and we are not collateral damage for your identity confirmation.

As far as I know, these two pieces of legislation have been in operation for 11 and 17 years respectively without significant figures to suggest they cause a substantial problem.

Women are being sexually abused by male inmates in prison, that's a substantial problem.

Love this post. I agree with everything you've said here @Redapplewreath

There is no valid reason whatsoever that anyone who says they are a woman is one. That woman is no more than an 'identity' that can be opted into. Sometimes part time fgs.

It's mysogyny of the most extreme.

I'm not really too sure it matters where it comes from. Having followed GC discourse for some time, I'm feeling slightly confident that I would be forgiven for thinking that the ultimate goal is to remove the protected characteristic 'gender re-assignment' from the EA as oppose to stopping something that deals with birth certificates and privacy.

As far as I know, these two pieces of legislation have been in operation for 11 and 17 years respectively without significant figures to suggest they cause a substantial problem. I don't really know, but I'm guessing repealing either is going to require substantial evidence of the general (not the odd one off case) harm they have caused?

Excellent twitter thread about the GRA.

twitter.com/HairyLeggdHarpy/status/1412439798401351684

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1412439798401351684.html

We do not have an Act to recognise racism - for it would indeed be racism - to 'identify' as a race we are not, based upon racist stereotypes we treasure of race 'psyche' or race aesthetics.

We would understand it is demeaning to people of genuine ethnicities were we to ratify false, stereotypical, racial characteristics into law about them, as a means to facilitating entry of an imposter into their group.

It's worth reading the whole thing.

MN thread: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4290138-GRA

I got that jelly.

I'm just up in the air. Genuinely. I know the arguments :) thinking about those with sex dysphoria rather than gender obv.

Gender dysphoria is totally ???

If you hate your sexed body that's one thing.

If you feel you are the wrong gender- but it's not to do with the fundamental whole of your sexed body. Then what is left? Fashion? Hair? Breasts are a big deal for, to me, obvious reasons related to male gaze. Behaviour? How others behave to you? Interests..... Stereotypes. All socialised from birth and enforced to s greater or lesser degree.

The answer there is to erode reduce and stop the oppression of everyone with these stereotypes.

But. That's not what's wanted.

It's regressive in the extreme.

Repeal that bullshit.

Yours,

A democratic Marxist.

What does it mean to be a woman if a woman is defined as "females + males with gender dysphoria - females with gender dysphoria"? What do these groups have in common?

How do we ensure everyone is given equal opportunities when we have to deny sex in certain situations? Who decides when sex is important and when it's not?

It seems people just think of prisons, hospitals wards and contact sports, but what about work and education opportunities, healthcare and political representation?

I'm not sure that my opinion is get rid of it, or make it available only to those with severe dysphoria and etc etc.

The treatment for any dysphoria cannot be to require others to join in with it and pretend that the situation which distresses the dysphoric person does not exist. It also creates a distasteful hierarchy of male entitlement to women's name and spaces.

And one thing this has taught me as a lifelong nicey lefty type.

Is that the left don't give a fuck about us either.

It's made me read more of s variety of things and opinions. I can disagree, agree. It's useful to know what the mainstream right is thinking and why. That way you don't get caught out.

Plus. I know loads of Tory voters. They come in many sorts and for many reasons. They aren't all evil. This polarised goody/ baddy thing about massive groups of people is childish quite frankly. (I'm talking mainstream not the NF or similar obv!). But even then. Why are they so angry? So ready to commit violence? What happened to make them like that? What can be done about it?

Oh and no of course it doesn't 'hail from the right'. It hails from women from across the political spectrum.

The number of women who are totally ok with any male using or going to anything female only at any time. Is not very many. I mean honestly. Little girls? Elderly women? Women's support groups, communal changing? Etc etc. No of course they bloody don't.

Also this right wing thing as an insult is pathetic.

In the UK the mainstream right is much more moderate than the USA where this 'insult' comes from.

And if we're all right wing. Why would calling us right wing shut us up? It doesn't even make sense. It'd be yes I vote Tory so what. I still don't want penis owners self ID'ing into the communal changing at my little girl's swimming club.

Obviously.

I'm not sure that my opinion is get rid of it, or make it available only to those with severe dysphoria and etc etc.

I would not want it to be retrospectively taken from those who have one. The numbers are small.

And until this recent activism started ok it wasn't known really but. The numbers are small. And this movement is fucking things up for them already.

I have no idea how in practice to roll back the societal change. Now that the strongly enforced social norm of single sex things being single sex has been eroded (women's things - how many women are using men only stuff and would the men be polite about it?!) then it's really hard to go back.

Name calling instead of engaging with the arguments. Appeal to emotion.

We see you.