Let's have a poll!

And we are back to GRCs as being the answer. Which was discussed on pages 7 and 8. I refer to what I posted there:

Smash the patriarchy by protecting vulnerable men! How are they vulnerable? Because they have a certificate! How did they get that certificate to say they’re vulnerable? Because they lived as a woman before they got it! How did they “live as a woman”? Errr….

I genuinely want to understand how anyone can believe a GRC is useful in solving these issues. I’ll grant that it’s better than self ID, but its entire basis is someone solemnly swearing they have “lived as a woman”.

There needs to be an acknowledgement of truth on definitions before any progress can be made on action and legislation being implemented.

The opening post of this thread had the aim of corrallling people into pre-ordained boundaries; and also trying to exclude voices that the poster knew might be problematical. That's the issue when you can only think or conceive of a situation within a narrow ideological framework.

There is an essential insecurity in setting up a discussion in such a way that your own first base positions cannot be challenged.

Your dogmatic rigidity squashes life out of any discussion. You want to determine the exact rules by which others are permitted to engage.

You are looking for the answer you want, and if a response doesn't conform you reject it.

There's no point in discussion if you keep rebuffing people's responses.

So how does your proposal differ from the current situation?

I think we should do two things: 1) make the GRC a necessary part of recognising someone as trans.

Just on this one. How does that work to prevent Katy Dolotowski, Katy assaulted girls in public toilets?

Having a GRC monitor at every public toilet isn't going to work.

I accept it might have prevented Katy from getting into women's prisons/ refuges but once the social contract is broken on allowing some males in toilets, without toilet monitors, more girls are at harm from assault.

You do realise that the "spousal veto" doesn't give a man's wife the right to veto his transition, but just ensures that she doesn't end up as a legal woman married to a legal woman, right? So why do you want to "get rid of the spousal veto"?

Transpeople but not those transpeople, whatever that means.

You won’t answer questions because you can’t answer questions. I have no interest in shutting the thread or discussion down. I have an interest in people who make such bold and outlandish claims backing them up. You won’t, because you can’t. An acknowledgment of that from you would be progress but clearly you aren’t capable of doing so. I guess it is what it is.

Just popped back here to see if the confused person with opinions was STILL keyboard warrioring. Yup. Don't know how you all have the patience to respond but hats off to you for showering them with patience and logic.

I do think they need to get outside though and take some air.

Your middle option included treating trans people as their acquired sex in most social and work contexts. How does that make what to do about White et al a trans problem?

@NotBadConsidering isn't bullying you Adam. These I really reasonable questions that need answering.

If women are responsible to protect trans women on the basis we are all harmed by the patriarchy (which I think you are suggesting), then how do you define a trans woman and how do you exclude certain trans women to protect women from harmful characters like Dolotowski and White?

Pointing out gaping holes in your posting and arguments on a discussion thread is not “bullying”. I think everyone can see your logical failures and as such, your posts are meaningless.

Clearly not straight, as they are trans

You can be straight and “trans”.

Again, not an answer. I'll answer your question when you answer mine.

Don’t fall for this. I answered OP’s question up thread and they still haven’t responded to what a middle position looks like and how it can possibly be implemented when TRAs aren’t campaigning for and don’t want a middle position.

You can’t even represent yourself, there’s no need for me to misrepresent you. You want to do a poll on the rights of “trans people”. You think feminists have a shared interest in protecting “trans people”. It’s right there. You said it. But you can’t define “trans people”. You’re clear you don’t want to protect Karen White et al. So WHO do feminists have a shared interest in protecting then?!

Britain is a majority ethnic Anglo Saxon - Jute - Celt - Norman nation - what else would you expect? Britain is doing better than most in terms of diverse representation. Name any other country around the world where there is as ethnically diverse a government, for example?

Are Dolatowski and White 'straight white men'?

Do you not see the issue with your oppressor/oppressed narrative?