To be terrified about what will happen if the Gender Identity Bill is passed?

[TheWorldAccordingToToads]

I'm a nervous wreck right now

Will it replace sex as a protected characteristic? Does that mean that women will have no legal protection at all?

I'm scared .

Nobody 'feels' like a woman. You either are a woman or you aren't.

There is certainly a larger discussion to be had about accessibility and availability of toilets for all, but it can never be had on the basis of people 'feeling' masculine or feminine, because that is a load of bollocks.

You seem to assume that all men are just waiting to rape or molest you at the first chance

🙄

they'll all be running out and buying a dress

Why is everybody so fixated on men wearing dresses? You do realise that if the gender identity bill is passed then they won't have to put on a bloody dress or change their appearance in any way, all they will have to do is download a form from the internet and declare they are now a woman and that's it; they'll be allowed to access to female facilities to their hearts content.

They are just people, some of them feel like women. Some women feel like men.

What does feeling like a woman or a man mean?

I'm a woman. I don't particularly feel like a woman. I just feel like me.

Why are people so bloody obsessed with toilets and changing rooms?

It's not just about toilets and changing rooms; there are far bigger things at stake here.

What about rape crisis centres? Women's DV shelters? Prisons? Hospital wards?

Should a woman who has just been raped and requests to give her statement to a female police officer be forced to talk to a man who identifies as a woman? What about if she requests to be examined by a female doctor? Or should she just put up and shut up if she is given a man who feelz like a woman instead?

What about sports? Should a 6ft burly bloke be allowed to play on a women's rugby team because he identifies as a woman?

You do realise that those things could happen if this gender identity bill is passed?

But you're right, let's just focus on toilets and changing rooms

I know I'm slightly out of the main school(s) of thought on this thread but I happen to think that some men can "feel" female (gender - a function of society - so it can change all the time anyway). A very tiny minority of people feel so strongly the opposite gender that they seriously want to live permanently as that gender and have their external genitalia surgically rearranged. Ouch, I say, and they probably need a bit of looking after. Their rights to be looked after may not in all circumstances however trump women's rights to be safe.

They can't "feel" like a woman (sex) because that's biological.

But under this new bill you actually don't even have to "feel" female. You just have to say you do. And everyone else just has to put up with that.

I know I'm slightly out of the main school(s) of thought on this thread...

I don't think you are. No one is denying how anyone else feels. Just that feelings aren't what make you male or female. It's the biology that matters.

You do realise that if the gender identity bill is passed then they won't have to put on a bloody dress or change their appearance in any way, all they will have to do is download a form from the internet and declare they are now a woman and that's it; they'll be allowed to access to female facilities to their hearts content

As has been pointed out upthread, if the bill became law then the current exceptions would apply and it would still be perfectly lawful to ban trans people from using women-only facilities.

Jellyfrizz, the reason a Bill couldn't slip into law unnoticed in this country is that it has to go through the process of being published and debated in Parliament, which is open to the public and the Press. I rather suspect the same happens in Ireland, so I also suspect that it wasn't the case that the law there was in some way smuggled through under cover, but I don't know enough about that system to say for certain.

As has been pointed out upthread, if the bill became law then the current exceptions would apply and it would still be perfectly lawful to ban trans people from using women-only facilities.

I hope you're right about that.

I know transwomen and men who identify as women have been allowed access to women's shelters in Canada since the bill was passed over there.

As has been pointed out upthread, if the bill became law then the current exceptions would apply and it would still be perfectly lawful to ban trans people from using women-only facilities.

But how could they apply it if there is no meaningful distinction between women and not-women in law?

And yes, in Ireland I'm sure it was published and debated but I'm not convinced the consequences were fully understood or commented on in the media. If responses from Mumsnetter MP's are anything to go by they do not understand and are n full support of the changes.

www.lifesitenews.com/news/sexual-predator-jailed-after-claiming-to-be-transgender-in-order-to-assault

theavtimes.com/2013/05/14/palmdale-man-arrested-for-videotaping-in-womens-bathroom/

www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Man-Dressed-as-Woman-Arrested-for-Spying-Into-Mall-Bathroom-Stall-Police-Say-351232041.html

www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/14/man-who-choked-girl-in-womens-restroom-stokes-alar/

Also taken from the last link there:

“I’m sure his intent was innocent,” said Susan Wright in a Friday post on the conservative website RedState. “I’m sure he really felt that he belonged in the women’s restroom and the little girl was somehow oppressing him, which caused the confusion, resulting in his hands ending up around her neck.”

I'm assuming she is being sarcastic there

I rather suspect the same happens in Ireland, so I also suspect that it wasn't the case that the law there was in some way smuggled through under cover, but I don't know enough about that system to say for certain.

Oh, no one claims it was kept a secret, as such.

Just that no one really went out of their way to tell people about it, and ask women if they're okay with males in women's prisons, et cetera.
Much like when a big pharma company does not like the results their new medication got in clinical studies, they publish it in an obscure paper that is technically public, but almost no one reads.

And I would assume that it was/is phrased in a way that makes it appear that it only concerns transpeople, so no one is much interested in it, no one realizes that it affects women. The word "gender" hides a lot.

Vestal - Makes me think of this bit in HitchHikers Guide to the Galaxy...

“But the plans were on display…”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”

But how could they apply it if there is no meaningful distinction between women and not-women in law?
Women and transwomen are both currently protected under the equality act, but it's still legal to exclude transwomen from women's spaces, although justification has to be given (it's probably far easier to legally justify exclusion from a women's support group for sexual assault victims than a social club, for example).

Obviously not all service providers or groups do decide to exclude transwomen.

There's no suggestion that that is going to change with the new amendment, just that those who identify as the opposite gender will have the same protections that transgender people currently have.

just that those who identify as the opposite gender will have the same protections that transgender people currently have.

But why do we need that? What exactly is wrong with the current law?

And WTF does identifying as the opposite gender mean?

There's no suggestion that that is going to change with the new amendment, just that those who identify as the opposite gender will have the same protections that transgender people currently have.

I think there would be far more confidence that the bill was not a step towards removing women's rights if it were currently acceptable to say that women are a distinct group that has nothing to do with trans women and the concept of innate gender has no scientific basis. The response to Jenni Murray's article clearly shows that this is not the case.

However, if the bill admitted that gender identity doesn't have any objective reality outside current social constructs, what would its point be?

just that those who identify as the opposite gender will have the same protections that transgender people currently have.

Do you mean opposite sex? Gender can't have an opposite as it's made up a spectrum.

jellyfrizz - yes that's what i meant, apologies for the slip!

However, if the bill admitted that gender identity doesn't have any objective reality outside current social constructs, what would its point be?
To prevent discrimination on the basis of current social constructs, I guess?

As the law stands at the moment you have to 'live as a woman' for two years and then obtain a gender reassignment certificate. But we are already finding schools, institutions, doctors, universities, feminist groups, lesbians, sports, scholarships, etc being given guidelines where many men without even those two criteria, are accessing things previously reserved for women and redefining language to accommodate a tiny minority.

The girl guides let a boy in, he did not have those two criteria. There are loads of similar examples on these threads alone. Pubs, clubs, restaurants, have no recourse if a man identifying as a woman wants to enter. The two current criteria are already being completely ignored. It is discriminatory to ask to even see a gender reassignment certificate.

Culturally in most places it's already a done deal.

It will get 100 times worse if a self identification goes through. Yes there might be a court case banning a transwoman from accessing a rape crisis centre, but the damage will already have been done. The culture is shifting towards it becoming completely acceptable, not only without asking or consulting women, but without even telling them!

A national treasure like Jenni Murray has received the most heinous abuse for even suggesting that a transwoman is not the same as a woman.

How many distressed and uncomfortable women and children is it going to take?

This entire process has to be reversed. It's already gone too far.

But how could they apply it if there is no meaningful distinction between women and not-women in law?

Very easily: in the same way as it is perfectly lawful to exclude men from women's facilities and vice versa, it would be lawful to exclude men who identify as women, and vice versa.

Oh, no one claims it was kept a secret, as such. Just that no one really went out of their way to tell people about it, and ask women if they're okay with males in women's prisons, et cetera. Much like when a big pharma company does not like the results their new medication got in clinical studies, they publish it in an obscure paper that is technically public, but almost no one reads.

But Bills have to be published on the Parliamentary website, so there is no question of hiding them in an obscure paper. And then they have to be debated in the House of Commons and the House of Lords, both of which are open to the press and the public. There are also applications in place under which you can be specifically alerted by email about debates and questions in Parliament about topics you are interested in. So if this one passed under the radar, people who objected would really only have themselves to blame.

To prevent discrimination on the basis of current social constructs, I guess?

But why not just make it illegal to discriminate on grounds of dress or makeup? Wouldn't that do more to free people from gender constraints?

This dude here is currently taking up space in a women's shelter because he "identifies as a woman".
Not saying this is false, but do you have a source for it being a women's shelter?

Not saying this is false, but do you have a source for it being a women's shelter?

He posted pictures of his hormone prescriptions which clearly showed his address which apparently is a women and child shelter run by the Catholic Church. Ironic considering muscato is also a vocal atheist