UK not polarised over trans equality

A trans boy? I’m assuming their at school still.

My ds is dating a transman, my dd is in class with a girl who id's as a boy and uses he/him pronouns and have changed their names etc, and there is a boy I have seen in her school who is gender non-conforming (wearing a skirt instead of trousers). No idea if they consider themselves trans or just want to be gender non-conforming but that's just in my tiny world. So it wouldn't surprise me tbh.

The GRC is not a total matter of secrecy

Not total secrecy, no, but a very high level.

and can be disclosed for several necessary purposes - such as in a police investigation.

Yes, for a small number of limited purposes. But a police investigation only happens after the fact. My point was more that a GRC isn't any use for deciding who does and doesn't belong in most women-only spaces.

So for example in that awful rape of a woman by a trans person in a hospital last year they could indeed have esatablished if the patient had a GRC or not. Which I am almost sure that they did not in this case.

I am not sure why you are bringing this up? In the House of Lords Baroness Nicholson blamed it on Annexe B of the NHS guidance on same-sex accommodation, not on GRCs. The question was not whether the (accused) rapist had a GRC but firstly, why a patient in the women's ward had an intact male body and secondly, why it tooks months for the hospital to acknowledge to the police that such a patient was there.

TWAW is the polarizing issue, especially as a 'no' will get you labeled a bigot.

Useful analysis

sex-matters.org/posts/updates/response-to-more-in-common/

and

twitter.com/SCynic1/status/1537423494069293057

Mmm!

The vitriol in one side = burn in a grease fire

And on the other = we want single sex spaces to remain single sex

Shocking levels of mutual hatred, oh my!

That is not entirely true. The GRC is not a total matter of secrecy and can be disclosed for several necessarey purposes - such as in a police investigation. That overrides anyone not wanting to disclose. Quite rightly.

So for example in that awful rape of a woman by a trans person in a hospital last year they could indeed have esatablished if the patient had a GRC or not. Which I am almost sure that they did not in this case. But the decision not to find out for certain was incorrect. If they did have one then that could be disclosed to the police so it was simply chosen by them to not to pursue that option here or they were afraid to ask most likely given the way trans activists behave.

The person with a GRC can also tell anyone if you ask them and I cannot see any good reason why they would not if it mattered in the circumstances of any dispute. Being obstructive is the last thing we are seeking. We regard the GRC as a bond of trust with society. Not some ticket to do anthing we want.

If that person chooses to lie or declines to say then that is a problem they create and if it is assumed they do not have one by default then they have no reasonable comeback. The Equality Act advises people the can do that and it is perfectly reasonable to do so.

Those with a GRC are not like the trans activists out there. We are not looking for trouble or to cause a scene. If anyone challeged we would either tell the truth and / or just go elsewhere. The last thing we are aiming for is to be noticed.

Whereas that seems almost the only thing transgender activists are out to do.

Also not all of the 5000 have altered birth certificates as this requires taking extra steps but cannot be done without a GRC - so there are probably only about 4000 or so who have one in the UK and about a quarter of these are women who have changed their birth certificate.

Again here the original record is not removed and the link is retained to birth identity and whilst not made public it can be accessed for legitimate reasons. Including police investigations.

That is my understanding.

Well most people think a transwoman is a post surgery depenised male making every effort to live 'as a woman' having suffered and continuing to suffer gender dysphoria. Thus is not a survey asking a truly reoresentative range of the population an unbiased question presented with all the facts.

(Actually I am not sure if the current act is UK-wide or if there are already Scotland-specific bits)

Then in other words, a GRC is totally useless as a way of gatekeeping who should be allowed into women's single-sex spaces. Totally pointless.

Yes, that's not really what a GRC is supposed to be for. It entitles you to change your birth certificate, marriage certificate and pension and benefits. Whcih is why there are claims that it's just a trivial bureacratic change. But in practice it also seems to do more.

Having a GRC does affect rights in some spaces such as prisons, at least according to representations to the Scottish Equalities Human Rights and Civil Justice Commitee which is looking into reform of the existing UK act. Its very worth having a listen to the committees - they're recorded and transcribed, and they are very clear, detailed explorations of many issues with many viewpoints and all polite and respectful. ( Most recent and Archive ) Like an anti-Twitter!

I know 6 people who identify as trans, but then I'm quite posh, which fits with transition being very middle class in the UK. All the trans people I know are either older male Oxbridge graduates or younger female children of Oxbridge graduates. Really quite striking.

I don't know how meaningful these surveys are unless the researcher shows clearly they defined their terms upfront and the participants understood.

Everyone asked whether they believe TWAW/M should be told whether they are agreeing to that statement in light of people who fully transition with a GRC or people who just change pronouns and maybe a bit of clothing.

Then there's the people who still get confused and think TW refers to female transitioners and vice versa.

Hmm, yes what purpose does a GRC actually serve then?

Having a GRC is a matter of secrecy and in most circumstances you're not allowed to disclose if someone else has a GRC, nor to ask if someone has a GRC, nor insist that someone tells you if they have a GRC in order to access a service (like a toilet or a women-only group).

Then in other words, a GRC is totally useless as a way of gatekeeping who should be allowed into women's single-sex spaces. Totally pointless.

@FemaleAndLearning @TeenPlusCat Yep that gen-z category 18-24 (6 years) also had lower birth rates than other categories. So it's being given top billing in a comparison with more populous categories. A verbal and visual distortion of the statistics. It might have been better to represent their findings with a good old fashioned Florence Nightingale style polar area diagram, as The Lady with the Lamp's method would have given more illumination.

I don't think it's right that people who have undergone medical transition and gone to all the trouble of getting a GRC should have the same rights as people who merely self ID.

It's more complicated than that. Having a GRC is a matter of secrecy and in most circumstances you're not allowed to disclose if someone else has a GRC, nor to ask if someone has a GRC, nor insist that someone tells you if they have a GRC in order to access a service (like a toilet or a women-only group).

So either you have to say everyone can self-id their way into anything, or you have to say there are sex-based rights that people of the other sex can't be given, whether they have a GRC or not.

Do the people surveyed understand the true nature of what's going on - diminishing Women's rights, silencing women, destroying womens sports, drugging children - or was it a vague "let's be kind - do you agree" sort of survey?

That should say from the position. “Soft GC” is “TW aren’t women but should be treated with kindness and consideration, and that may involve pretending they are for social purposes.”

Soft GC, meet hard GC.

Yes, exactly. They are not distinguishing themselves from the people but from the word. That is called throwing people under the bus.

“I’m not the same as Forstater, Joyce, Sodha...”

”But you don’t believe TWAW?”

”No.”

So the difference is, they just have more courage?

people describing themselves as “soft GC”,

Like women used to describe themselves as "I'm-not-a-feminist-but ..."

There are now people describing themselves as “soft GC”, presumably to distinguish themselves from the evil women who have been speaking about this with determination for years, even though they’re saying the exact same things.

When will they learn? There is no such thing as “soft GC” in the eyes of the activists. It’s not like boiling an egg. You either believe TWAW are literally women (and TM are literally men) or you will be called a bigot.

I’ve read the Guardian story and skimmed the More in Common report.

It looks as if no clear explanations were given, in the survey, about the meaning/s of trans or transgender. Transsexuals weren’t mentioned. Most people quoted had little knowledge of the issues or conflicts of rights, and a very vague idea of what trans meant.

The report’s tone is of ‘be kind’ liberals who wish everyone would be nice to trans people.

Women’s rights got a couple of obligatory mentions in passing.

But The current trend for some journalists to pose ‘gotcha’ style questions to leading politicians on whether women can have penises, bears no relationship to how ordinary people think about these issues. The public do not want or need strict definitions, because they know these are very individual issues, which are complicated, and which require common-sense solutions. Very often those solutions will have to be worked out on a case-by-case basis, rather than through a blanket rule.

To which most people I know would say “No. It’s not complicated. Women are adult human females.” or some variant on that theme.

I don't think it's right that people who have undergone medical transition and gone to all the trouble of getting a GRC should have the same rights as people who merely self ID.

Given that most of the 5000 transsexuals with a GRC (I am one to be clear) with whom I have talked on this say much the same thing then we are probably nearly all those actually covered by the GRA right now are bigots too.

We have told them this in their consultations. In England at least I think they have listened and are sebsibly rolling back.

The government esewhere is dancing around that fact if they are not actually listening to the ones they created the law for in the first place and only the ones who have excluded themselves from accessing it already because they can only do so if the gatekeeping is removed. The gaekeeping that helps bring balance to the law and rightly would never haqve been passed without it. Indeed they could and should go further - such as axing the ridiculous primogeniture exemption the Lord added and by taking away any GRC if convicted of a crime. Both things exisating GRC holders have suggested but were ignored btw.

Some bright journalist - if we have any - should be asking for the difference here with on the same principle allowing anyone to self declare that they can drive a juggernaut down the motorway to speed up supplies in time of shortage. Right now they say they are not allowed as they have to prove they can do this safely given they might be taking dangerous cargo and could harm other road users with such a huge vehicle - but they insist they know they can do it so stop insisting someone has to gatekeep them.

The poll shows that only a minority think transmen are men and transwomen are women. The majority thinks intact male born people should stay out of women's safe spaces. The majority think male bodied people should stay out of women's sport.
Looks like the majority of people in this country are "evil terfy bigots" who are literally "seeking trans genocide". Or something