Emma Barnett and Gillian Keegan.

"In terms of toilets, etc, as they often pass better than transwomen, that's an argument for a third space. "

Yes I suppose that's true. Often but not always. And there are transwomen who pass completely too.

So how about those transwomen, who have had surgery (vaginoplasty), and actually go completely undetected at work and socially due to surgery and hormones from a younger age?

What should be done about those, if they use women's spaces?

Would it be acceptable for that person to use a female toilet etc , if nobody knew, that she was actually a transwoman?

Should a "third space" and or a 4th, be exclusive for trans people?

Labour enacted the GRA. Are they likely to repeal it?

It would have to be a third and fourth space though as trans men and trans women aren't going to want to share either.

Transmen are women and should therefore be accessing women's spaces and services, like rape refuges, prisons, etc.

In terms of toilets, etc, as they often pass better than transwomen, that's an argument for a third space.

Being female, many transmen understand that their presence might threaten women, and will use the male space. But if they don't want to do that, then a third space is the obvious option.

And yes, the GRA should be revealed. It's a nonsense piece of legislation that enshrines deceit into law.

Quite.

So what of what else I wrote?

What of Trans Men in Women's spaces?

Should the GRA 2004 be repealed?

It seems to me, that this is a FAR bigger, and vastly more complex subject, than the narrow debate it has so far been, anywhere in the media or anywhere else that I have seen or heard it discussed.

You haven’t been on here before, then.

If it is once again so, that TW are NOT W, then should the Gender Recognition Act (GRA 2004) be repealed?

For those unfamiliar, the GRA grants those trans people who apply, and who succeeed, the right to change their birth certificate. That is from male to female, or from female to male.

If it is now decided, that all trans people remain what they were as stated as being at birth, either a boy/man or girl/woman, then what place does the gender recognition act now have? Should that legislation be repealed, and all who have obtained a different birth certificate, be reissued with their original birth certificates?

And what too of transgender MEN? Are they Men or Women. Presumably, they are WOMEN. If they are Women, and if they are now fully bearded, male chested, and surgically endowed with a functioning penis (PHALLOPLASTY), would you be happy for this 'woman' to be, naked or dressed, in a women's loo or changing space? -- Given that she is after all, still a woman, and so entitled to use those women's spaces.

www.dailymail.co.uk/video/femail/video-1638134/Video-31-year-old-trans-bodybuilder-undergoes-phalloplasty-surgery.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/fb-7509645/WHAT-PHALLOPLASTY.html?ito=native_share_article-nativemenubutton

It seems to me, that this is a FAR bigger, and vastly more complex subject, than the narrow debate it has so far been, anywhere in the media or anywhere else that I have seen or heard it discussed.

Gillian Keegan and Starmer both think sone men are women.
Where are their critical thinking skills?

Agree GK sounded very muddled. And seemed to think a GRC means a man will have had his sexual organs removed.

In her interview, Gillian Keegan criticised the idea that "gender is a spectrum", which would suggest that she thinks she believes that "gender" is binary. Or feels that she needs to say this for some reason.

"Gender" seems to mean all kinds of things but so long as part of it is about masculinities and femininities, then it certainly looks like a spectrum, ie there are loads of different people with their own "gender thing". Like there is a spectrum of personalities (at least).

The people who say gender isn't a spectrum are those who are talking about sex being the same as "gender", or that they are so closely tied to each other that if you have a particular sex, then that goes with a matching "gender".

There's stuff in this thinking that has more in common with trans activism than a gender critical position. It's also a nod to her preferred side in the Culture Wars.

I don't think she has any grasp on this issue at all. So referring to Keegan's thinking might be an overstatement.

No, I agree, that was probably a bridge too far.

And look at where Cass has taken us

Sadly all true

If labour had been in power we’d have gender self if by the back door nowhia Scotland. It was Kemi Badenoch’s plan to call the Scottish Government bluff on this and block their gender self ID legislation arguably causing SNP to implode.
There’s no way on God’s green earth Labour would have made that decision at that time.
Also labour would never have set the Cass review in motion and funded it back in 2020. Never would have happened

Well you can say it twice but looking at the trajectory we’re clearly moving away from gender in a way other countries either are not or are following after Cass

Labour likely would have seen us more Canada territory by now

Sure, I suspect there are cases in which junior staff have filtered out or 'lost' gender critical communications but I find it very hard to believe that they would bother to respond to me with a baldfaced lie that Keegan has already met constituents and discussed the issue. On reviewing the correspondence I see that I also had a prior telephone conversation with this individual who was confirming this in writing. Not the actions of someone trying to avoid engagement and just sweep it under the carpet.

The Tories have defended it too, like i said earlier, no difference between the 2 parties.
So i'm not expecting anything from Labour on the GRA.

Funnily enough puberty blockers haven't been stopped, they just won't be routinely prescribed, existing will still get them as will those children who access medical trials.

No numbers on who will be put forward for trials or criteria mmmmmm now call me cynical!

I’m so relieved we have the Cass review and puberty blockers have been stopped, plus new guidance

Does anyone think about how hard some worked to stop women speaking up and claim to appreciate those things now?

The change didn’t just happen, it took hard yards

Anyway I’ll focus on the good we’ve done so far.

I'm not sure they would Eastern. It would lead the press for days on end. But this at least stops them expanding the current situation by stealth.

It would be very depressing if they did reverse it

I had the same thought about correspondence.

Certainly not a GK fan. But she is more or less doing what we all wanted here. Her EB interview wasn't great (EB also not great in that segment IMO) but she was better in Parliament. Some MPs' questions of her were rather concerning, and indicated a terrible lack of knowledge. So at least this small act - no more than they owe us - at least is a good thing.

Let's say it goes through, well then if Labour want to change it, they will have consult and tell us why they're removing all the safeguards and age appropriate rules that were just put back in.

That's entirely possible but I do think in post Cass world we will be hearing a lot of 'I've only just been made aware of this' disingenuous type statements.

It's entirely possible that she personally didn't see them. We have heard before how office staff have kept this kind of thing from the minister involved.

Just listened to it. It's an outright lie to say she only first started getting emails about this in 2020 and had never come across it before. I've got copies of my emails to her in 2018 and 2019 and detailed responses from her office.

Love EB

She wasn’t the minister at the time in 2020 though. Iirc it was gavin what his name and he was busy causing havoc with exams and on line teaching and whether 5 year olds should wear masks ( spoiler they shouldn’t)
also this guidance can only be effective now in 2024. There is no point being right too early! It would be a strategic mistake.
in 2020-2023 stonewall etc were arguably too powerful and influential for this guidance to see the light of day.
it’s the Cass report that has allowed it and that literally came out a month ago.
sometimes things have to run their course and if you try and make changes too early people aren’t ready to hear it and it would have been dismissed as scaremongering or bigotry. It is harder to make those arguments now in 2024 when most people had a better handle on the issues.