First time poster - question about GC beliefs

do you accept that some people firmly believe they are born in the 'wrong' body
Yes. I accept that some people believe this. But that doesn't mean they were 'born in the wrong body'. The body you were born with is your body. You might not like it. It might be quite shit. But it's yours.

(do they) have a right to live as the other sex
Well that doesn't mean anything. You can't live as something you aren't. I live as a woman purely because I am a woman. I can't live as a millionaire because I'm not one. I can't live as a non diabetic person because I'd probably die.

Or do you believe these people should not ever be supported to live as the opposite sex? That doing so is always wrong? As above you can't live as something you aren't. I think people should wear what they want and use whatever name they like. If I knew then as their 'old' name it might take me a while to remember the new one. But I'll do it. Have the hobbies and interests that you want. They don't belong to either sex. But play on the teams for your sex and stay in the correct toilets and changing rooms.

Here’s a summary of the protected beliefs held by Bailey…..

290. Applying the Grainger criteria to the beliefs she held, we concluded that her beliefs, not just about gender self-identity, but about the pernicious effect of Stonewall’s campaign promoting gender self-identity were genuine. We also found that these amounted to beliefs, not just opinions which might change with further evidence, because at the core of her opposition to Stonewall, frequently stated, was her understanding that their stance on gender theory – transwomen are women – a matter of their belief, underlay and was driving forward the erosion of women’s rights, access to single sex spaces and lesbian identity; it also underlay the characterisation of gender critical belief as transphobic and a hate crime, which was leading some to violence against gender critical believers. The claimant does not have to be correct, or have evidence to show this – religious beliefs can be difficult to prove. Her statements show that her belief was that Stonewall’s espousal of gender self- identity as a theory led to the practical consequences she deplored. We considered whether these were matters of opinion, based on fact rather than belief. The only way we would see any change to her belief was if Stonewall itself modified its approach to gender identity theory so as to accommodate the possibility that physical differences between men and women based on sex should lead to say, spaces reserved for women based on sex not gender, and separate sporting competitions, based on sex. That would not be a change based on evidence, but a change based on Stonewall modifying its belief such that the claimant would no longer consider there was a conflict.

The claimant’s beliefs, taken as a whole, in our finding pass the test of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance. They cohere because of the claimant’s understanding that gender theory, adopted without compromise, generates the range of adverse consequences for women and lesbians that
are described in her list of beliefs. Her objections to Stonewall are all because of the gender self-identity theory which she believed to be erroneous. We concluded it was not possible to separate Stonewall as a campaigning organisation from the gender theory with which the claimant disagreed. Her objection to Stonewall “proselytising” gender self-identity theory is about the difference between her belief and theirs. To separate them would be like holding that homosexuals may lack belief in evangelical Christian teaching about sinfulness of same-sex orientation, but not be protected when they speak against a church institution, or that reformed Protestants are not protected when they denounce the Church of Rome as the whore of Babylon or the Pope as the Antichrist. Manifesting those beliefs may be limited under articles 9 and 10. The beliefs set out by the claimant cohere as an interrelated whole because they are all underpinned by the conflicting view of gender and sex.

292 Finally, we concluded that expressing hostility to Stonewall campaigning on the basis of gender self-identity did not seek to destroy the rights of others, in a way that would not be worthy of respect in a democratic society. It was part of the “dust and heat” (Milton: Areopagitica) generated by the conflict of opinion that must nonetheless be tolerated to avoid the greater evil of censorship.

293. We concluded that all the claimant’s pleaded beliefs, not just the belief that woman is sex not gender, are protected.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Bailey-judgment.pdf

There is more to it than that: enforcing pronouns, making you participate in a fantasy, avoiding sex offenders in dresses pretending to be transexual, queer theory, wanting to be called lesbians and calling lesbians racists for not wanting to sleep with them. Having a “female penis” whilst women are now referred to as “womb Havers”

the list goes on

If an individual did these things, but stopped short of entering single sex only spaces or competing in single sex sports, for example - would that be ok to a GC feminist?

Sure. So long as they don't expect other people to be infringed by their actions, they can do what they want. The thing about GC women is, so long as women's rights, dignity and safety are respected, safeguarding is adhered to and children aren't harmed mentally or physically, we're not saying that other people can't live as they see fit.

For example, I'm an atheist. I don't care if other people are religious. I don't share their beliefs but as long as I don't have to adhere to them or practice them, its nothing to do with me.

We're far more live and let live than we're painted in reality.

It would be ok to this GC feminist, there’s not a manual that we sign up to so I can’t speak for everyone. I’m happy to acknowledge and celebrate a trans woman as a trans woman - name, clothes, whatever (hormones and surgery should have suitable safeguards). Gender is a social construct and therefore we are free to reconstruct it. But where protections or provisions are on the basis of sex, they remain on the basis of sex which is immutable.

How do you feel about a non Native American person wearing clothes usually associated with Native American stereotypes, going by a name generally associated with Native American stereotypes, performing actions generally associated with Native American stereotypes, and undergoing surgery with the aim of 'passing' as a Native American person to a casual observer and alleviating distress they feel from being born a race other to the one they would have preferred?

If an individual did these things but stopped short of applying to be accepted into Native American reserved jobs and roles, or to speak for Native American people for example - would you be ok with that?

Would you expect actually Native American people to be ok with that?

I wouldn't have a problem with that provided that there had been adequate safeguarding in respect of the hormones and surgery.

The trouble is that the number of male people who say they identify as women but have had no surgery at all and feel entitled to use women's spaces is a lot higher than the number of those who have had all the surgery and make every effort to "pass" but still stay out of women's spaces out of respect for women's rights.

Hi there and welcome, @lovelycosyslippers

I started my journey of enquiry as to what my position on the trans debate about eight months ago. What “peaked” me was the deceleration by stonewall and others, including some females, “trans women are real women”.

It was also at the time bothering me about trans identifying as female accessing women’s services such as rape crisis therapy groups, and competing in women's sports.

The more i researched the worse it appears to be to me. I fell upon this board on that journey and located all manner of sources thanks to GC community and their discussions

To really understand all the issues in detail you need to read up an awful lot but the best place to go is Helen Joyce on you tube she explains GC in an easily understood and measured way.

I'm all for religious tolerance and freedom of belief between adults, as you say within the bounds of basically, your right to swing your arms around as you like ends at someone else's nose. For example I'm all for mixed sex 'women's' resources so long as female only womens resources and services are also provided, so that male people who would like to identify as women and have additional choices to men's resources and services do not exclude women with vulnerabilities from having anything. Answers have to work for everyone, basically.

I don't believe that children should be taught any one political or religious faith or belief as the 'truth' as opposed to 'some people believe', and I have very serious concerns about children being sterilised or harmed by medications that have not been properly tested, that may have a serious lifetime impact or result in a young adult bitterly regretting what has been done to their body and stating that the adults who helped them into this lifetime harm should have protected them from it.

The whole 'live as' thing.... well it sounds very nice, if you don't think about it too much. I mean if someone wants to live as a Vulcan or an elf or a cat and they aren't involving non consenting others or behaving inappropriately then let them do whatever makes them happy. But if I asked you how you feel about a white person living as if they are black by dressing/blacking up, or a non Native American person living as a Native American person, or how you feel about a non disabled person living as if they are disabled and wishing to use resources and services for actually disabled people, would you agree that this gets a bit more complicated and is not nearly as harmless?

There’s more detail on page 7.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60c1cce1d3bf7f4bd9814e39/Maya_Forstater_v_CGD_Europe_and_others_UKEAT0105_20_JOJ.pdf

Here’s the summary from the Forstater Appeal Tribunal.

“The core of the Claimant's belief is that sex is biologically immutable. There are only two sexes, male and female. She considers this is a material reality. Men are adult males. Women are adult females. There is no possibility of any sex in-between male and female; or that a person is neither male nor female. It is impossible to change sex. Males are people with the type of body which, if all things are working, are able to produce male gametes (sperm). Females have the type of body which, if all things are working, is able to produce female gametes (ova), and gestate a pregnancy. It is sex that is fundamentally important, rather than “gender”, “gender identity” or “gender expression”. She will not accept in any circumstances that a trans woman is in reality a woman or that a trans man is a man. That is the belief that the Claimant holds.”

The trouble with saying that adults seeking private treatment is fine is that at the moment children are being told they are born in the wrong body. Especially if non conforming or if gay. 18 is still so young and so many of these teens have growing up to do

I think some people believe it about themselves- I always understood it as a metaphor for discomfort about your own body but now I’ve no idea if that’s the case or if it’s a yearning for the stereotypes of the opposite sex.

I don’t really care if someone believes it of themselves as long as I’m not expected to agree with them.

WRT adults being able to make body modifications as they please, I think that if there is no proven medical benefit, this should not be available on the NHS.

I also think people should be protected from unethical surgeons - there need to be some limits to what is allowed I think to protect vulnerable adults - I'm not sure what those limits should be, and how people should be judge as vulnerable though.

I really think it's important to look at this phrase:

to live as the opposite sex

And ask oneself what that actually means.

A man cannot experience menstruation, pregnancy, childbirth, menopause - all of the things that make the largest difference to women's lives.

Even women who don't have children have the 'children question' and the risk/possibility of pregnancy accompany them from the onset of menses til menopause.

We are deeply impacted by our bodies and our lived experiences. No man will ever share those experiences, no matter how much facial surgery he has, no matter how many hormones he takes.

So in what way can anyone 'live as the opposite sex'?

It's not possible. It's possibly to try, or pretend, or even believe one is doing so.

But objectively, logically, practically, it's not possible.

People may "believe they are born in the wrong body" in the same way they may believe doing laundry on Jan 1st means they're cursing a loved one, or that the moon is made of cheese.

It doesn't mean that belief is reflected in reality. We are our bodies, we don't inhabit them like ghosts in a meat suit.

How best to help people live their lives will vary. For many, helping them to come to terms with who they are is the best outcome - with watchful waiting the vast majority of gender-questioning young people find it resolves itself as they go through puberty and out the other side.

For a small number of people, mostly male according to the historical records, changing their gender presentation is the best outcome. That doesn't mean aonyone has to pretend to believe they've changed sex, nor does it give them the right to access services, spaces and support aimed at women.

I don't give a fig if Steve wants to call himself Skye and wear a twinset. I do care if Skye then wants to join my hockey team.

Those who believe they are born in the wrong body, only do so because they have been told it's ok to believe it, and it provides some sort of causation to their mental distress.

There is no medical grounding to support these claims, which were invented by lobbyist charities and big pharmacy where several those in senior positions have since been removed a

I do t believe it is right to encourage someone to "love as the opposite sex" bye see the life long inability to achieve "living as the opposite sex" causes ongoing significant turmoil and mental stain for the individual.

Treating dysmorphia appropriately requires significant therapy, many techniques as yet are still to be identified as the focus up to now was to affirm such beliefs.

As it was said years ago, it will remain a medical scandal of our future. Read up on Bell vs Tavistock, the use of Gillick Competence, Maya Forstater, Alison Bailey lots to get you started.

If you hold gender critical beliefs, do you accept that some people firmly believe they are born in the 'wrong' body,

• yes. People believe lots of things that I don’t feel for myself.

and have a right to live as the other sex (up to but not including the point where it would impinge on the rights of that other sex),

• People should be able to wear what clothes they like, call themselves what they like, take hormones and make body modifications. They shouldn’t be able to insist that others call them by new names if it’s hard for them to do so, and they shouldn’t be able to insist that others must believe them to be the opposite sex. This includes using facilities for the opposite sex or taking part in sports etc on opposite sex teams, as it’s unfair for women in particular. It should not be ok for children to make hormonal or surgical modifications.

possibly taking hormones and undergoing surgery? Is this a coherent position to hold?

Or do you believe these people should not ever be supported to live as the opposite sex? That doing so is always wrong?

• there’s nothing wrong with wanting to dress as the opposite sex - I think it would be a hell of a lot better all round if men felt comfortable about wearing more of a range of clothes just like women do. But there’s a lot wrong with insisting others believe in the fiction that clothes or body modifications or hormones actually change someone’s sex. We should treat each other with perfect respect all the time regardless of sex and most of the time someone’s sex is irrelevant - but sometimes it matters and gender identity, while important for some, is not more important than actual sex. I am for example perfectly comfortable with there being many people of varying religions in the world, but I would be very uncomfortable with being made to declare that I also believe their god is real when I don’t.

People can believe anything they want and people can wish things all they want but you cannot be something you are not just because you want to be, if that were the case I would be a millionaire, size 6 and sleeping with Jamie Dornan.

There are two legal judgments which define / summarise gender critical beliefs as protected under the Equality Act 2010 - the Maya Forstater Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Bailey v Garden Court Chambers Employment Tribunal.

You might find it helpful to read those.

I don't believe that there is any such thing as "living as the opposite sex".

If a man wants to wear dresses and change his name to Sheila and request that people use feminine pronouns then that's fine by me (as long as the latter is genuinely a request, not a demand), but he is not living as a woman because the only way to live as a woman is to be in a female body.

I feel it is important to make this distinction because if we accept that someone who adopts certain superficial trappings of womanhood is "living as the opposite sex", we are effectively agreeing that that is what the opposite sex is. This excludes gender non conforming people (such as butch lesbians who never wear dresses or makeup but are nonetheless still women) and it is confusing for young people. I also believe is is feeding the current epidemic of young people, particularly girls, wanting to identify out of their birth sex. If we accept the premise that someone like Dylan Mulvaney is "living as" a member of the female sex, the danger is that girls who see that and don't identify with any of it will not think "he is not a woman", but rather "maybe I am not a woman". This is clearly harmful, so I think we need to be very careful about the language we use, and about not allowing the harmful language others use to go unchallenged.

As for hormones and surgery, I am very uncomfortable with the idea of allowing people to harm their healthy bodies to treat a condition that only exists in their mind. This is even more dangerous when it comes to young people. So I am completely opposed to puberty blockers and I don't think even young adults should have access to cross sex hormones or surgery until they are at least in their mid 20s and have undergone years of extensive therapy. Even then, there are a couple of high profile detransitioners (Sinead Watson and Ritchie Herron) who had surgery in their late 20s and now regret it. I believe that the pharmaceutical industry should be looking into developing drugs to help alleviate the symptoms of dysphoria and allow people to live more comfortably in their natural bodies. But I can't see that happening, both due to the current power of this ideology and the fact that there is a lot of money to be made in turning healthy people into lifelong medical patients.

The whole thing is a mess.