To be sick and tired of women's concerns being silenced?

[MerchantofVenice]

Obviously I wouldn't dream of doing a TAAT.

But is anyone else as furious as I am that every time people try to raise legitimate concerns about the legislation about self-identity and transgender people, the whole discussion is shut down?

There's this undertone of 'Oh, you can't say that!!!' when people state scientific facts.

And at the same time, there's this myth that 'MN is one of the only places you can actually discuss the transgender debate openly.' Like fuck it is.

Your average person on the street isn't intimately acquainted with the madness of the debate and will have no qualms about stating facts. You see it on the comments after those nonsense news articles ("Man gives birth"). When you explain the situation to novices (as I did to my husband) they are gobsmacked. They had no idea that it was somehow a hate crime to be literate in biology.

And that's part of the problem; this hushing up colludes with the idea that people are saying something controversial. The debate stays secret and the tide of common sense never comes.

So sick of it.

There is, but it starts with the recognition that sex is not gender and gender is not sex

Okay, but you do know that that was the position pre-Gender Recognition Act. That you were born one sex and could not change it even if you lived as the opposite sex. That was found to be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and led to a change in the law. Are you essentially advocating a change back to the old (non-compliant) position?

MNHQ deleted my thread in feminisim.
Not trying to silence us MNHQ....really

I think there are plenty of women who are happy to throw other women under the bus to benefit males

Yep. Plenty of women. Whatever that means these days.

*Cat has explained she has Higher Functioning Autism ... Her argument has also clearly highlighted some of the problems with that condition...Social anxiety and inability to empathise"

So how are those of us who have been affronted or assaulted by men in women's only spaces supposed to react exactly?

I don't see why a GRC isn't sufficient to perform the very job it's supposed to - underwrite an affirmed belief of the holder. Just like a marriage certificate confers a legal status (and, in some cases, protection under equality legislation), why should a GRC not do the same?

Why does a GRC allow the holder to alter a different type of protected characteristic on their birth certificate?

Because it corresponds with medical/psychiatric belief that some people were born in the wrong body and fundamentally identify with the opposite sex. That is why gender reassignment is available on the NHS.

By altering the birth certificate, it confirms the belief that the holder has always been male/female. It also prevents the inevitable discrimination that would ensue if you had to declare to your employer etc that you were born a different gender from the one you now are.

Remember that it's not just birth certificates- passports also have a category for sex. If you take away the right to be known by a different sex legally, an MTF trans person would always be known as a man on all documentation. It was that which the Gender Recognition Act sought to change.

But they will never be the fastest. So it's pointless anyway.

What an incredibly condescending thing to say. Talk about silencing women, so women should never compete in any sport because they'll never be the fastest or strongest! What about different weight categories in contact sports. Or is it just because you are not personally interested in sport it doesn't matter? Somebody else's passions and dreams don't matter because you personally are not interested? Do you feel the same about the Paralympics?

Sorry I'm still only on page 4 but I couldn't get past this.

That you were born one sex and could not change it even if you lived as the opposite sex. That was found to be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and led to a change in the law. Are you essentially advocating a change back to the old (non-compliant) position?
Yes. I don't believe you can change sex. (I'm not even sure I like using the word 'believe' to describe my position - 'biological sex' just 'is').

I do, however, believe that people should be free to present/behave/assert belief how they want and, in some cases, receive protection from the law for those beliefs. I advocate equality for all people of any gender or none. I advocate protections that particular genders require.

I also advocate protections that particular sexes require.

Remember that if you want to deny the ability for trans people to be known on official documentation as their new gender, you ARE removing the rights that they acquired 13 years ago through legislation. This was following litigation in the European Court of Human Rights, which found that English law was incompatible with the Convention.

Opening up women's safe spaces will also negatively affect religious women, many of whom are already oppressed. My Muslim friend has already stopped going to our university's gym since they allowed self-identified women into the women's changing rooms. How is that fair?

Remember that if you want to deny the ability for trans people to be known on official documentation as their new gender, you ARE removing the rights that they acquired 13 years ago through legislation.

I'm not sure why you find that people don't think a law shouldn't have ever been passed in the way it was so immensely surprising.

Cat I have appreciated your perspective. The information that has been provided to you, that you have not shown signs of processing, has helped me have a wider insight into the potential problems of vulnerable spaces being open to mixed genders.

I winder what the wider male perspective is...are dads, sons, brothers, husbands etc. happy to know rapists and similar could be legally allowed access to women and girls in vulnerable situations?

My position is exactly the same as MaidofStars.

Yes. I don't believe you can change sex. (I'm not even sure I like using the word 'believe' to describe my position - 'biological sex' just 'is')

OK, I think at the time of the GRA, opinion generally was supportive of the fact that transsexual people should have the right to be recognised by their new identity.

I think it is highly unlikely that there will ever be a U-turn on this unless we get a hardline right-wing PM (along the lines of Trump). Remember that trans people go through huge emotional turmoil and forcing them to live as their assigned gender at birth (e.g. by denying them a passport in their new gender), this is going to have a severely detrimental effect.

Are you really saying you want to get rid of their rights completely?

'Forcing them to live as their assigned gender'? What does that even mean? Short of things that it is biologically impossible to do, women can, in theory, do pretty much anything men can, and vice versa.

If you find that such a heinous prospect you need therapy, not to change the law to cater to you.

(I don't believe that making spaces shared is dangerous.*

In my experience single sex spaces are not safe. Why should we keep the status quo when they aren't safe?

I was raped Cat at work on a night shift. For me being somewhere alone like a changing room with a strange man would cause me untold distress and would stop me from being anywhere that could happen. It would restrict my life if female spaces stopped being female spaces.
Is that fair?

I'm not sure why you find that people don't think a law shouldn't have ever been passed in the way it was so immensely surprising

Should never have been passed? It WAS validly passed, voted for by MPs. It was a response to the ECHR's ruling that our law did not comply with the right to private and family life. Human rights are for everyone- trans people AND women. Trans people deserve protection and so do women. I cannot see how women's rights are encroached upon by recognising (as we have done for 13 years) that a person can legally change gender and be known to all intents and purposes by the new gender, regardless of that person's chromosomal make-up.

It just seems quite outdated to have such a strong desire to go back to the legal position last century.

God this thread is depressing. The lack of empathy is absolutely jaw dropping. HFA? Well it doesn't make everyone lack empathy so why does it make you like that cat ?

Men in women's spaces doesn't bother you but it does bother me... is that less relevant than your HFA?

What about lesbians? Or even straight women, who might look at you? Or do you only not want to be "looked at" by someone with a penis?

If so, why?

Dolce, you're starting to really fuck me off. I won't be explaining to you, or anyone else why I don't want a bloke looking at me. I'm astounded you're that arrogant to dare ask.

that a person can legally change gender and be known to all intents and purposes by the new gender, regardless of that person's chromosomal make-up
I support this position completely.

I do not support the idea that a person can legally change sex.

Rogue that poster called me a silly womenz for not standing up to my rapist. They are clueless or plain vile I cannot decide which.

I have now skim-read the ECHR document on transgender rights.

I think it is well-meaning but misguided. It refers repeatedly to the very small number of transgender people. This was the case for decades, when only people suffering extreme distress from dysphoria would transition to alleviate said distress. Due to the small numbers and the fact that full reassignment surgery was carried out, it didn't cause much issue to grant these people the courtesy of being treated as the opposite sex, even if one was well aware that they were not really.

However now there has been what is in effect a trend or a social contagion, for people to "identify" as the opposite gender, or non-binary.
The sheer volume of people, plus the fact that there will soon be little or no onus on anyone to prove anything before being legally recognised as the opposite sex, is where the problem comes in.

I think a lot of people still think of the issue as a rare case of a very distressed person going through hell, and are appalled at the seeming lack of empathy. Whereas it's become a far broader category than that, and in accommodating that, the rights of women as a sex are being undermined.

'Forcing them to live as their assigned gender'? What does that even mean? Short of things that it is biologically impossible to do, women can, in theory, do pretty much anything men can, and vice versa

It means for example, a biological female who has had gender reassignment and is now known as a man, having to show his passport or birth certificate to employers or other officials, revealing that he was born female. It is also the law and society officially classing someone as 'female' when they in fact want to be known as male. I am not talking about doing different activities or anything like that. But living as a particular gender means being accepted and recognised as that gender. It is a major part of a person's identity. It would be as if society insisted on referring to you and seeing you as male. You can say that it doesn't impact on what you do day to day, but I am pretty sure that it would have an impact on you.

I'd bloody love it if society insisted on seeing me as male quite frankly. Hello payrise!

I do not support the idea that a person can legally change sex

OK, Maid but changing gender involves being known and acknowledged as the new gender. That involves changing details on passports etc. If you say to someone that they can go from being a man to being a woman, but that all official documentation refers to them as male and they are to be treated as being male (e.g. having to use male facilities), then you are not actually giving them any rights, are you? Because you are not acknowledging their new status as a woman at all.