Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To urge you all to write to your MPs?

124 replies

OrderMeACurry · 21/10/2017 17:30

I know this has been done before but I was inspired to start this thread whilst in the middle of writing yet another bloody letter to mine after he decided he was going to ignore my last two.

Now that Theresa May has announced that she backs the gender identity bill and wants to de-medicalise trans sexuality (great, thanks for that! Hmm) I really do fear that it is very highly likely that this will go through.

So if you've written to your MP already, please do so again and if you haven't then it would be great if you did. This really is getting urgent now.

Now if you excuse me, I must go bang my head against a wall.

OP posts:
mogloveseggs · 22/10/2017 22:16

Placemarking as this really bothers me. I'm not one for politics or anything remotely similar on here/in real life but am going to write to my MP about this as I am worried especially about places such as refuges/rape crisis centres. I just can't imagine that the one place you could feel safe could be taken away. Sorry not explaining my thoughts well at all.

Rumandraisin1 · 22/10/2017 23:18

I am worried especially about places such as refuges/rape crisis centres

Me too. At the moment the law says that trans people who have a Gender Recognition Certificate should be able to access single-sex services for the gender they identify as but allows an exception "where the exclusion is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim" - with the example given being a rape support service where women who have experienced rape may not feel able to access a service if biological men are there.

Now, it is proposed to remove all the 'gatekeeping' over who can say they are a woman and, as far as I understand, they are also planning to remove this exemption. I have asked both my MP and the Minister for Equalities this specific question and just got some bland guff back about how they are progressing trans rights so I'm taking that as a negative sign. Sad

It's also very important that the legislation is very clear otherwise you get cases like this one in Canada where a male-to-trans individual took a rape crisis charity through the courts for 12 years in a bid to be a counsellor to female rape victims. With charities struggling financially (particularly women's refuges), we really can't afford for them to be tied up in lengthy, financially draining legal battles:

thetyee.ca/News/2007/02/03/Nixon/

FusionChefGeoff · 23/10/2017 00:26

I've got my email written - but I don't understand parliamentary process.

What do I actually want him to do?

  • vote against
  • push for debate
  • raise a question in the House??
DanHumphreyIsA · 23/10/2017 00:54

This is so scary, I don’t understand how anyone can believe it’s a good idea?

Huge thanks to all those who have explained this in ‘laymans terms’, I have struggled to understand fully what this means up until recently.

I will be writing a letter.

How can this country consider taking away safety from women? Why are women’s human rights not taken into consideration?

I am genuinely feeling a sense of dread reading this thread. Sad

GrabbyMcGrabby · 23/10/2017 01:04

Thanks for flagging OP.

Arealhumanbeing · 23/10/2017 01:16

mogloveseggs

You explained your thoughts perfectly.

I am so scared I can’t articulate my thoughts on this matter. It feels like the final, ‘fuck you’.

DarthMaiden · 23/10/2017 01:41

I’ve already written to mine not expecting any response or understanding as he’s a male Tory Toff.

RedToothBrush · 23/10/2017 02:42

Can't say i'm surprised.

When my sibling came out as trans it raised a whole load of issues for me. Many family members struggle because of how it affects relationship dynamics. Many families end up breaking contact as a result. Sometimes this is led by the transperson as they struggle to escape their past.

I have not spoken to my sibling in years as I can't cope with it. That would technically make me a criminal if my sibling decided to be bitter about it.

It would stop family members being able to access counselling if they were struggling and felt they needed support as it would be illegal to feel that way. Organizations that already exist to support families could become illegal.

My sibling was that paranoid that my DH would be prejudiced against them didn't tell us for months. Their ex partner attacked us verbally before we literally said a word. We were open minded initially but the aggressive defensiveness and hostility shocked us. A bitter individual could really use this to manipulate the situation to abuse power in relationships.

Thats ultimately where the problem lies. In the power dynamic and how it can and will be abused.

I felt for a long time that my identity was stolen from me and some one imposed theirs on me. I have no problem with self indentity but my objection is how this is imposed on others.

You can not flick a switch and go from being brother and sister to sister and sister over night. Even with the best will and intentions in the world. Even in the most understanding of families. This law would effectively force that. Much needed conversations needed to.understand would effectively be criminalised.

This is not a good thing for anyone. It will be exploited by malicious individuals at the expense of decent trans people too. It may well end up increasing real hate crime in the form of violence against them. It certainly will increase suspicion and distrust.

Its so counterproductive.

I genuinely cant think of anyone it really will benefit in practice apart from those who will take advantage to abuse its scope and power. Its such a poorly considered and thought out.

The practical implications are horrendous.

I have to say though, I do question how May will be able to pass it through parliament. The Tories are not well known for their support in this area for rights - even if is damaging to women. You think the likes of rees-mogg would support?. Which means it requires cross bench support. Would May risk a defeat on it? She is avoiding anything that might be defeated. Too many other things at stake and limited parliamentary time.

But worth putting on the pressure for that exact reason.

Datun · 23/10/2017 09:15

RedToothBrush

Your post is so heartfelt. You sincerely have my sympathy.

You’ve nailed a very important point. The power dynamic is what makes this issue so difficult. If you’re not aware of it, or you are a man and therefore benefit from it, it’s incredibly frustrating.

I’ve said it before, but a crash course in feminism 101 is what is necessary.

People are entirely unaware of how the male/female power dynamic works in terms of the bigger picture.

They see male violence, rape stats, domestic abuse, men in power, women doing the housework, men being served first at dinner by MILs, and women being talked over meetings, and then don’t add it all up!

The fact that it is men identifying as women who are the problem, is lost. The fact that he is not women identifying is men is lost.

Men have the power. And when they identify as a woman they take even more power.

RedToothBrush · 23/10/2017 11:38

What irks me most is that I am told how to feel repeatedly or think about it and how I can not question it.

The phrase but he's still your brother suggests that nothing has changed. Comparisons to coming out as gay are common. Just generally telling me that everything is the same as it was before.

Its not.

I have a sibling projecting what they rightly or wrongly, think it is to act/appear as a woman in how they talk, walk, dress. At times I found it grossly offensive in stereotyping.

Then there is a person, who is trying in many ways, to look a lot like you. Its like a warped mirror. That fucks with your head and your own self image. Do you look like that? Do they see you as something to model themselves on? You can not offer an opinion on poor choices of dress or point out why you find their mannerism distasteful as that is a personal attack or criticism, even if its well intentioned because they are so defensive and so insecure.

You can not do anything right for doing wrong. You walk on eggshells the whole time. You put your feelings in a box to please the other person, because "they have it worse than you because they have to live with it".

Then there's the guilt. Did you do something wrong. Did your parents? Is it genetic? Is it cultural? Is it environmental? Might your children go through the same thing? Did they want to be like you? Were they jealous the whole time? And then there is suicide rate. Omg the suicide rate.

Your shared childhood, takes on a totally different angle. You find yourself reassessing everything because of the new information you have. It taints it and clouds it. Its like there was a great big lie in the middle of it all. It wasn't real.

But you can not always ask the question or be honest about things for fear of offending. Not because you have prejudice, but because you are trying to get your head around the damn thing and you are impacted by it, in ways others don't talk about or appreciate. Its not the same as before. Everything has changed.

Add in the prospect of you putting a foot out of place and not being acceptable to the person going through it and having legal recourse against you, trying to come to terms with things its positively frightening.

I consider myself a liberal, but found myself questioning whether I really was because I struggled with it so much. Until I realised it was about the power dynamic and how the whole situation undermined me and my identity because it forced me to reassess myself and stopped me from being in control of my identity. The very thing that my sibling was seeking to assert. This was not something that was liberal in nature. Far from it and quite the reverse.

Relationships like this in other settings can be called toxic. They can be actually abusive in some cases.

For me, I don't have a problem with trans people as such. I don't have a problem with people who are trans and I have not had this prior relationship with. My concern is ultimately not the great toilet debate at its most basic. Its the way in which things have been forced and its the aggressive way it has crushed legitimate concerns about identity that others have. Its the balance of power with the whole thing and how certain 'inconveniences' have been swept aside because one individuals feelings are more important than anothers.

That is not equality. That is not making it a level playing field. That is not progressing anything. Its just creating new issues and denying the reality and existence of others. Call it post truth gender politics if you like.

This legal solution neglects so many issues. Its being forced through by people who frankly sound like they know jack shit, but want to appear like they are progressive.

That's what makes it dangerous. The lack of proper thought and consideration of the implications because politicians want to appear as if they are doing the right thing and are liberals.

Its fake liberalism in authoritarian clothing. Its doomed to fail us all. Trans and non trans alike.

Another way, HAS to be found, or there will be people who suffer in all sides of this.

EmpressOfTheSpartacusOceans · 23/10/2017 11:46

Red CakeBrewFlowersWine

DarthMaiden · 23/10/2017 11:55

Two very enlightening posts Red.

Thank you

Datun · 23/10/2017 13:11

Red

Have you read the narratives by people calling themselves transwidows? I know a sibling is not a spouse, but the overlap is startling.

I was reading about another woman who had the same problem with her husband copying her mannerisms. It drove her mad, on all the levels you have described. The discomfort, the outrage, all of it massively compounded by the fact that she was supposed to react positively otherwise she was in the wrong.

I’ve just been thinking what I would do. And I think it would make me want to go the other way. I’d suddenly want to sit with my legs open burping the alphabet.

Stephanie Davies Arai said the same thing about children. Specifically girl children.

A boy comes to school identifying as a girl. He is wearing gendered female clothing. He is lauded, feted and told how stunning and brave he is. No other reaction is permissible. The girls look down at themselves, look back at him, and wonder, quite shatteringly, why they are neither stunning nor brave, despite actually being female.

Little wonder that girls who do not perform femininity now think they are, or want to be, boys.

It’s the same reaction to me wanting to burp the alphabet.

RedToothBrush · 23/10/2017 13:23

Just on a point of law, the situation of the trans-woman exposing themselves in the changing room and complaining about it being a hate crime would probably not be that clear cut.

It actually would be down to a judge to decide what the intent was. In certain cases it would still be indecent exposure. However the possibility of cases being brought is likely to stop reporting of such crimes and most women certainly would not understand that they still would have a legal recourse if they decided to pursue it. Remembering that the intent in these situations is precisely to intimidate and have power over another and you have a problem. The law would in effect aid and abet that that scenario. It also would be about the need to prove intent, and in many situations you would expect it to be one person's word against another. Like so many other sexual harassment situations. It creates a new grey area where previously it has always been black and white.

If the existing law is not seen to protect those it should, it becomes ineffective and that is the type of thing that leads to people losing trust and faith in it. Hence more likely to take matters into their own hands. This is also where it becomes down right dangerous for trans people.

Courts will get getting involved in lots of lesser situations too where there simply has been a breakdown in communication and a lack of understanding by one side or both. The involvement of courts in this type of situations should always be an absolute last resort.

Because the law would inhibit conversations to break down barriers, it would not progress things. You are not increasing knowledge and acceptance. You are putting up a ruddy great big barrier to that.

The law does have its place in helping disadvantaged groups with rights. It does have a place in protecting against prejudice. The law can however be, if poorly done, a clumsy weapon against it. You need to win hearts and minds to change perceptions as well as having the law.

I fail to see how such a blunt instrument of a law in this area would achieve that, especially given the complex nature or relationship (and changing relationships) and ideas of identity of any type being such a mine field and such a personal thing.

My gut feeling is that what should be a priority is actually not law. Certainly not at this juncture in time in this way. It should be about creating gender neutral facilities where possible as at least a stepping stone where there is cross over. It should be about improving communication skills between groups and it should be about promoting healthier relationships between groups which have conflict.

But this requires money and investment to do. And ultimately does not fit the agenda of hard line trans activists. Nor our politicians who don't want to invest in anything right now.

The thing is though, if you do want it to be about equality, it does have to go down this route and there has to be a two way feedback process. It can not have this undertone of aggressiveness and controlling others that a blunt over simplistic law would have.

This is not where we are at. Its trying to make an issue which has many grey and difficult areas into a black and white one. It won't work for that reason. It has to be much more nuanced and open to the idea of respecting others rather that it being all about one individual.

In my experience one of the problems I see, is that someone who is trans spends such a huge amount of time looking inward at their own position, there isn't always an emphasis on thinking about the implications for others that there should be. They is often years of hurt and bitterness and resentment there. It is understandable. How it manifests itself is not always nice though.

My sibling did go through a process of trying to encourage empathy and how others would be affected by their decision, as part of the medical assistance that they received. It still was not easy. If you remove that obligation, that also amplifies the domination of the 'self' in thinking and I can not imagine how much damage that would cause. It would not prepare trans people and help them understand the reactions of others. By its nature being trans can be, for some not all, be somewhat narcissist to a certain degree simply because individuals are so focussed on the idea of themselves and I do think that needs to handled appropriately, not necessarily because someone is somehow ill and in need of their behaviour correcting, but because its about communication skills and things that people might not have even considered from another point of view. Its too easy to wrap yourself up and just listen to people going through the same thing and make it a 'us against the world' siege mentality. (I am cautious of using the narcissist, but I do think it appropriate too because there is an inherent risk factor here. Its not healthy for anyone to be that focussed on the idea of themselves).

There needs to be difficult conversations had and encouraged, not effectively shut down by legal instruments.

When I think back about my experience I do think there are lots of other things and areas that could and should be worked on to improve the lives of trans people and those around them and those who might have certain particular concerns.

At the moment, the narrative is you are a bigot if you have concerns and criticisms. If you do not 100% support trans people in every situation you are not liberal and you a phobic. That's fucking bullshit. Its too convenient for certain groups of people who have a vested interest in over simplifying things. Worryingly this isn't just hard line transactivists who have this interest either.

RedToothBrush · 23/10/2017 13:38

Datun, its a feedback loop of behaviour. Once you get into it, its difficult to break out of it.

The most obvious example elsewhere I can think of is with anxiety and getting stuck in patterns of negative thinking and/or avoidance type behaviour. Hence cognitive therapy to change that.

Certainly, the experience I've had, and I'm led to believe is common is trans people often expect a negative reaction, so can overly defensive and brace themselves for a negative reaction, having built the situation up in their heads in a particular way and in the process it provokes the reaction they feared because they have given off such a hostile attitude. Or they attribute certain behaviour to people being transphobic when its something else entirely.

You can't fix this with the law. You can only change this, by a soft approach within society which genuinely and sincerely accepts things by their own free will.

Datun · 23/10/2017 14:23

Red

You sound incredibly kind and patient. I honestly can’t imagine how your sibling doesn’t manage to get on with you.

In terms of narcissism. It’s estimated that 87% of trans-people have some kind of personality disorder, the highest of which is narcissism.

Which doesn’t really come as much of a surprise to me, given how it manifests itself online.

This has sparked my interest:

It actually would be down to a judge to decide what the intent was. In certain cases it would still be indecent exposure

If a man stripped down and started waving his willy around, I should imagine that would be construed as intimidating.

But just, say, facing the lockers, stripping off, briefly turning around to pick up his sports bag whilst glancing at everyone and turning back?

You’d have a hard time thinking that the women were not massively uncomfortable by this, despite it not being overtly intimidating.

I don’t think there is a woman alive who doesn’t fully understand how intimidating and lascivious a man can be, by doing virtually nothing. Certainly not by committing a crime.

If I’m alone on top of the bus and a man comes and sits next to me, my radar is going off like a klaxon.

Even if there are, say four available seats, the other three occupied by men, and he sits next to me, it still goes off, albeit to a lesser extent.

My point being it’s ridiculously easy to make women feel uncomfortable. In public, on a bus.

How much easier when I’m half naked in a changing room, or in a cubicle with my knickers down.

RedToothBrush · 23/10/2017 15:26

Yes, exactly.

That's another part of the problem over making it something for a court to define. Its virtually impossible and perhaps why it shouldn't be something for them to define. Especially since in so many cases it would be a male judge who would be doing that defining.

It will come down to intent and proving why someone did something. Did the person intend to intimidate a woman? Did they act in a way that was deliberately to make a woman feel uncomfortable. If the intent can not be proven then effectively then it will be deemed that legally no crime can be prosecuted.

However the woman may still feel intimidated and its possible for there to be incidents where a transwoman could accidentally intimidate a woman, but could still be accused of indecent exposure within law. It actually now falls under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 which is less specific in its nature. The current laws apply only to genital exposure with intent to shock those who do not want to see them. Which is going to throw up a huge problem.

The exact wording is as follows:

Exposure
A person commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally exposes his genitals, and
(b) he intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/66
Sexual Offences Act Section 66

The use of the word 'he' is one I would take with a pinch of salt btw in terms of law. If you can argue in law that you can have a female penis (which this new law would effectively do), then the wording of this law could just be reflective of the time in which it was written and not necessarily a barrier to a prosecution. If you read the act, some clauses are specific to a penis. And other clauses of the act seem to use the word 'he' even though it should technically now be gender neutral. I do believe a good lawyer certainly could argue the case.

I'm not a lawyer, but English law is incredibly logical in how it works, rather than necessarily being literal and often comes down to the words 'reasonable expectation'. How do women normally behave in a changing room? Is this person acting in a way that fits with this?

There is no definitive answer to this at present and it would require a landmark case to answer it beyond doubt without amendments to the law as it stand. If it wasn't and it provoked such a case, I could easily see ending up at the Supreme Court after various appeals.

But as it stands, I do think the law could still mean an offense could be committed, though it would be harder a) because women would not be aware that a crime could still have been committed b) are less willing to complain due to the hate crime counter prosecution fear c) think they will get taken less seriously by police d) the police do take it less seriously because of the conflict in the law and their own lack of understanding of it e) for the CPS to decide it was in the public interest and worth prosecuting f) the court to rule in favour of the woman g) win on any subsequent appeals.

FWIW I do think that someone with previous convictions under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, would find it more difficult to defend themselves though. Simply saying they were trans might not be sufficient to dispelling the idea of intent. And even even if they had apparently taken active steps in that direction (dressing as a woman / living as a woman) there may still be questions over the real intention of declaring themselves trans too.

Frankly its messy. It has the potential to leave trans women actually vulnerable to prosecution despite fears generally being to the contrary as well as making it more difficult for women to pursue a prosecution.

As I say ideally this law in this would need clarifying and need to be made more explicit to avoid this. I honestly can not see it being done as part of the new law though.

I hope this is a good explanation of why the law might be more complicated and less straightforward than people might initially think and how it might still protect women though it may be significantly weakened in its effectiveness and might not necessarily work for the trans community either.

Datun · 23/10/2017 16:07

Yes, I can see it’s complicated. Unfortunately, it’s relying on the fact that men are not generally allowed into women’s spaces. So their very presence could well constitute intent.

Unless their presence is legitimate.

So I’m thinking of the signs that are sometimes outside public loos to say there is a man in there cleaning them. His presence is entirely legitimised by the sign.

The presence of a strange man who is legally a woman, will absolutely be considered legitimate. And we have now unequivocally upped the ante as to what constitutes intent.

It’s not his presence in a room traditionally designated for women. And boundaries are then already violated, and goalposts are moved to accommodate that violation.

And I agree, if suddenly the new definition of intent is all about behaviour, that will be an absolute minefield. One flick of the eyes is enough to intimidate.

Which women everywhere know. Which is why the presence of a strange man in a female designated space will raise alarm. And will continue to raise alarm. Because, unfortunately you cannot legislate the misogyny out of men.

RedToothBrush · 23/10/2017 16:09

Because, unfortunately you cannot legislate the misogyny out of men.

And there it is.

You can not legislate fear out of women either.

Which is why using the law in this area should not be the thing that is leading change.

Bucketsandspoons · 23/10/2017 16:10

Red Thank you, some incredibly well thought out, explained information there and I've found it very useful.

Re exposure/indecency - it's hard enough to get the police to do anything about an actual assault or rape. Someone grinning at you and waving his equipment? It's his (her Confused ) word against yours. "I was just changing officer, she's a raving transphobe and has a problem with my ladystick!) If it's the likes of Tara Flick Wood, you've probably been punched in the face by this point too.

I seriously see a future where 'nice girls/women' don't change in public changing rooms or use public toilets. Because it isn't safe to, or comfortable to, it's a total minefield where you will have to walk on eggshells not to end up the aggressor however much you feel like the victim, and it will be a power kick to many that they dominate that space and push the boundaries of it.

Bucketsandspoons · 23/10/2017 16:15

And again to emphasise, this is not about saying ATWALT: (although you only have to look at the internet to know that undeniably, some are .)

The point is, yet again, ANY sexual offender will be able to appropriate the language of the law, say 'I identify as a woman' and do whatever the fuck they want.

Datun · 23/10/2017 16:19

I seriously see a future where 'nice girls/women' don't change in public changing rooms or use public toilets.

Because it won’t just be handful of people. Cultural acceptance of men in women’s toilets will become prevalent. Until gradually there are no women’s toilets. Everything is unisex.

It will take us back decades.

Lack of access to toilets effectively tied women to their homes, putting them on a leash as long as their bladder capacity. Even when London's first public toilets were built for the 1851 Great Exhibition, the prevailing modesty of Victorian society assumed women would be too embarrassed to be seen entering them.

www.museumoflondon.org.uk/discover/womens-right-work-toilet-bathroom-victorian-london-wwi-factory-protest

Rumandraisin1 · 23/10/2017 21:44

What do I actually want him to do?

- vote against
- push for debate
- raise a question in the House??

I just asked mine to raise the issues I'd mentioned and ensure there was a full debate which took full consideration of the impact on women and girls - but I think any of the above really. Either he'll take your concerns seriously and want to do everything he can or he'll just brush it off with some glib statement that doesn't even address any of the points you've raised (like the idiot I made the mistake of voting for in June!)

New posts on this thread. Refresh page