Will Labour introduce Self ID & curb free speech?

It's the same narrow minded righteousness that seems to infect left wing causes constantly which involves a real inability to see that there is often more than one set of logically coherent ways to frame problems and solutions, especially when you get into the realm of real concrete political action. People who see things differently are not just think or bamboozled or insufficiently caring.

What solution do you propose which meets the demands of the activists, that trans women should be treated as their adopted gender whilst also protecting women from predatory males (and I am not saying all trans woman are predatory males), or from self excluding from society?

I can't see how there can ever be a solution to this that satisfies everyone, so I am very interested in the way you frame this problem and how you would solve it?

I don't find AR's position very coherent, but I would really warn against creating a little club where only people who think the best way forward falls within a very narrow range are seen as ok. There are swathes of people who have been committed to standing against gender ideology, often to great personal cost, who will not fit into that narrow way, and to say they are fools, stupid, don't get it, o can't stand being seen as not nice isn't just counter-productive, it's counter-reality.

It's the same narrow minded righteousness that seems to infect left wing causes constantly which involves a real inability to see that there is often more than one set of logically coherent ways to frame problems and solutions, especially when you get into the realm of real concrete political action. People who see things differently are not just think or bamboozled or insufficiently caring.

I'd have thought feminists, having gone through the experience of the rise of GI, might have some awareness of this dynamic, but it seems not. I can't decide if it's an inability to both be able to maintain an argument for what you think is the best outcome, and also see that there is room for disagreement and discourse and allow for a kind of space for differences in viewpoint, and the possibility that there will need to be a kind of social-political space for differing views even on important issues..

The list of people who don't meet the standard keeps creeping, and I imagine people like JKR will soon not meet the high standard. And maybe people want to stop and think about what they are actually doing with that.

@Signalbox I totally agree.

Yet another violent sexual abusive male paedophile has been convicted in Durham for secretly filming & sexually assaulting women in public toilets and on a bridge. The bloke claimed he had the right to be in the women's toilets because he identifies as a woman.

How can views that enable paedophiles to assault women by claiming to be women be worthy of respect in a democratic society?

I do think a tipping point will come where society will stand up and collectively ask 'what the fuck we were thinking?' by enabling this.

We aren't there yet so I just do my best to contribute to a peaceful society by respecting others beliefs and not trying to assert my views on others.

The problem for you is that it's impossible to "respect" cross sex language and identities in any practical sense without imposing on all women the outdated and sexist view that a woman have a different type of mind, that it is this rather than the reality of sex based differences and social biases that lead to women's different risks and social outcomes, and that women's resources put in place to mitigate sexism should therefore be available to male people if they have the certain type of mind.

You may not believe in that yourself - in fact I hope you don’t - but in accommodating that belief in others you nevertheless impose the consequences of it onto other women.

I guess tolerance is what we should be hoping for in all of this. I have no expectation that anyone else should respect my beliefs. I can tolerate those with views that I don't respect and accept they have as much right as me to live in the world free from harm, so long as their views don't harm or impact on me or others.

Trouble is with trans ideology atm is it clearly does harm women and children in a multitude of ways. And to link back in with the OP it also has serious consequences for freedom of speech.

These harms are no longer theoretical harms. There are many many real world examples now: from men assaulting women in prisons; men in women's sporting competitions; women being de-platformed; women being sacked; women being assaulted at public events; women losing their livelihoods; women and men facing extremely stressful and expensive court proceedings; children being medically harmed when there is no evidence for such "treatments".

Naomi Cunningham recently submitted in the ERCC hearing that transgender ideology was not worth of respect in a democratic society because (and I'm paraphrasing) of the clear and evidenced harms it is having on the rights and dignity and privacy of women.

I think she is right and trans ideology does not even deserve our tolerance let alone our respect. And any woman who advocates for it to become easier for men to be able to falsify their sex marker on official documents when we know that as the law stands this will make things worse for women is having a bit of a laugh when she calls herself a GC feminist.

No, you got that right. Your idea of "ultra" and "lite" doesn't align with GC analysis and maligns people who have an actual GC position as extreme. I suggested your position is better described as "partly GC".

The "strawman" from you is the insistence that I am arbitrarily insisting on a personal definition of GC. I'm not, I'm telling you that your understanding of GC, particularly the distinction yoir are drawing between rejecting gender as a "reality" but being prepared to accomodate gender over sex to respect the "belief" doesn't align with what most people who are aware of the issues would call GC Feminism.

I'll ask again, why is it so important for you to label your position "GC"? You clearly believe what you believe and that's ok, why does it matter that it's not a completely GC perspective?

We aren't there yet so I just do my best to contribute to a peaceful society by respecting others beliefs and not trying to assert my views on others.

A shame that a belief that gender shouldn't trump sex, even with a GRC, isn't respected and women are harmed or excluded in society as a result.

The TRAs are particularly disrespectful of women who don't think the wishes of males should be put in front of the needs of women. Death and rape threats are not unheard of, women hounded out of jobs, and then you've got the likes of Russel Moyle, Lammy & Nandy who don't identify as TRAs but have no worries about women's rights so long as demands of the gender identities of men can be accommodated. Nandy hasn't retracted her belief that trans identifying rapists belong in women's prisons has she?

I asked you for shorthand as you don't like ultra/lite
To summarise your position came across as anything that doesn't fit a definition you gave, is not GC. Therefore no need for shorthand like ultra/lite as what I call "ultra" is the only GC position, anyone not in that position isn't GC.

If I got that wrong, let me know and my previous question still stands.

If I got it right, I'm confused what you think I'm strawmanning

It is entry to much more than that for example allowing transwoman ( male) police to strip search women

And the numbers of GRCs which were originally intended to be for about 5000 discreet Gender Dysphoric transsexual transwomen ( who had had genital surgery) like April Ashley, would be vastly greater than ever envisaged.

The Haldane decision in Scotland also made it more difficult by saying that gender really is ‘sex’ in GRCs and the Equality Act (I am not a legal expert. Some posters can correct this.)

This Parliamentary Committee discussion with Dr Michael Foran a year ago, regarding the Scottish Parliament wanting easy GRCs, helps see the legal ramifications.
https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/12639/pdf/

In Spain where self ID GRCs have been brought in a male soldier who likes his body and loves women, and who wears masculine clothes, is now legally a ‘woman’ - to show he can be.

Here is another article which might help explain.
Ministers must grasp the nettle on equality law | Michael Foran | The Critic Magazine
https://thecritic.co.uk/ministers-must-grasp-the-nettle-on-equality-law/

I'll remind you that I joined this conversation to ask you not to impose the arbitrary terminology of "lite" and "ultra" GC. This started with your imposing self appointed definitions.

I think if you read my posting history you'd be quite surprised how far away I am from the strawman you have created to argue with.

Or perhaps not, given that you have demonstrated a clear desire to disregard what people are actually saying in favour of what you believe they really believe.

More than that.

Why is it respectful to women for a man to demand to be called a woman?

Why is it respectful to lesbians for a man to demand to be called a lesbian?

Why is it respectful to men for a woman to demand to be called a man?

Why is it respectful to gay men for a woman to demand to be called gay?

Respect should be mutually and earned.

Demands are not compatible with respect. They are by their very nature disrespectful.

We need answers to this point.

I'd like to know how I'm NOT an adult for recognising that holding two conflicting oppositional thoughts at once is deeply problematic in terms of law and law enforcement. Given that good law rests on the very premise of explicitly and widely understood definitions to avoid confusion and the possibility of circumnavigating the law.

I'd like to know how I'm NOT an adult for recognising that holding two conflicting oppositional thoughts at once is deeply problematic in terms of data integrity and interpretation. Especially in health care.

I'd like to know how I'm NOT an adult for recognising that holding two conflicting oppositional thoughts at once is deeply problematic for those working in healthcare with people who are trans and how this impacts on diagnosis and treatment.

Hell I'd like to know what name I'm being called if I'm by definition 'not an adult' for seeing inherent problems which we somehow aren't supposed to talk about not resolve known issues with, in the name of 'being polite'.

But we need very clear and unequivocal about why calling it polite is problematic in its own right.

Yes it’s only recently dawned on me how using words such as “kind” or polite” or “courtesy” when referring to an individual making a personal choice to use wrong sex pronouns in certain situations potentially results in positioning those women who choose to do otherwise as “rude” or “discourteous” or “unkind”. I think slowly this is dawning on women more and more.

Men can't become women. If the GRA were repealed, it still wouldn't be illegal for anyone who wants to to call a man, a donkey or a bag of spoons a woman.

You are so frequently misunderstood Adam by so many different people. Doesn’t it ever begin to dawn on you that you are not expressing yourself in the clearest terms. Perhaps you could explain what you mean by giving TW rights in relation to pronouns if I have misunderstood your meaning rather than blaming my black and white thinking.

Yeah that's not the same thing at all.
The black and white thinking can be a hindrance.

“Really? My sense from this board is the vocal GC view is "men cannot become women" and that needs to be written into law. Get rid of the GRA, update the EA etc.”

This is just becoming absurd. No GC feminist has ever said they want it written in law that “men cannot become women”. where on earth have you come up with such a notion? It would be like putting “dogs cannot become cats” into a law.

I'm choosing to ignore you. Quite a different thing. I am not interested in discussing with someone who's only goal is to "win" a debate. Plus the head girl thing.

Because I'm an adult and can recognise other people have different beliefs to me, and are entitled to hold them, even if I don't like them.

Damn right I'd be more actively protesting if we started trying to embed religious beliefs into law. E.g. banning abortion or making certain privileges only accessible to married people. Writing the teaching of religious beliefs into education like they've done in America.

We aren't there yet so I just do my best to contribute to a peaceful society by respecting others beliefs and not trying to assert my views on others.

Massive eyeroll.

I've said quite explicitly in the last few pages that I think there needs to be separate protections (and by extension potentially 3rd space provisions).

I've said that language matters and this concept of 'polite' speech needs to go in the bin because this is still in effect compelled when you label it polite or respectful. That means it being widely accepted that it's ok NOT to use pronouns without any judgement being passed. That also doesn't stop others doing it, but we need very clear and unequivocal about why calling it polite is problematic in its own right. There's definitely a time and place for language not being mangled. As we know from various court cases it matters massively to use accurate language in legal and medical situations. It is also massively important in social situations at times - it is NOT ok for males to call themselves lesbians. There needs to be another word for those who regard themselves as same gender attracted as it is NOT the same as same sex attracted.

But you choose to ignore this, time after time again.

Shrug.

Yesterday evening around 23.20 (ish)

”In fact I said it should be a way of validating a "trans" identity and giving people someof the rights women have (basically pronouns and respect their belief).
Stop putting words in my mouth for me.”

I mean you do you, but why would you respect something harmful to women?

You also say you think pronouns are a right granted by having a GRC.

Show me where I said that.

There are actual harms done to transwomen when it's prohibited to discuss sex not gender.

Let's not forget this.

This puts both trans people and those serving/caring for them at risk.

This isn't anymore ok than harms done to women and homosexuals.

Really? My sense from this board is the vocal GC view is "men cannot become women" and that needs to be written into law. Get rid of the GRA, update the EA etc.

I did an interesting poll around Christmas that showed strong support for a third spaces kind of option, but those people are not true GC according to some, so can be discounted.