Am I alone in wondering where the WOMEN wanting to trans are?

[loveyouradvice]

They feel so invisible....

Everywhere I look there are men who have or are transitioning to be transwomen - on magazine covers, on all women shortlists, in the media....

But where are the natal born women who are/have transitioned?

The only two I've come across are:

• one who detransitioned and wrote movingly about it, after ten years as a transman
• the american high school wrestler who is fighting to be allowed to fight in men's categories

@Stillscreaming As we have heard a lot about your personal life, here is a bit about mine.

We have two kids and one joined us by adoption. The process took just shy of two years and involved a number of meetings with a social workers, and a family finder, a medical, as well as an assessment of our finances - and our homes suitability (despite the fact that we already had a child in the house).

How did I view this relatively lengthy process? A pain in the arse? Not really necessary? An 'indignity'? Embarrassing?

I viewed it as Essential.

I needed to go through this to prove I could be trusted with a vulnerable young child.

I do know of people who did not like the process and one who seemed to resent the fact that they could not 'shop' for a child to adopt as one might shop for a car! Guess what, their plans to adopt did not work out.

Now when a person wants legally change gender so that they can not just present as female (or male) but be recognised as their chosen gender, I think it is fair for there to be a process. Maybe that process should be free. But I don't think that process should be 'what do you think of yourself?'

Anyway, Still shall we go back to our not responding to each other's posts because we are never going to see eye to eye.

My hope through this painful process is that women and trans women (with GRC who have been through a process) will find a new understanding and work together better.

Because much as I may be pained as not supportive, just because I do not believe every man who thinks he is women (how can he know based on what is in his head?) I do actually care about trans women.

AND trans men who are constantly an after thought in these discussions even on a thread called "Am I alone in wondering where the WOMEN wanting to trans are?"

Not because women cannot do it alone, but rather because if we are truly working together for shared concerns, we may make more headway. But that will not include women being silenced, and it won't require trans women to have to speak on behalf of women anymore than women would presume to speak for trans women.

Interestingly, not everyone is as interested in your wife's peace of mind as you. wink

I'm perfectly aware that some women are happy to throw some other women under a bus for their own comfort. I know that the comfort and peace of mind of some women is much less important than the comfort and peace of mind of others.

I can see that feminine presenting 'natal' women are at the top of the hierarchy, are masculine presenting women above or below trans women?

I've not discussed my romantic life or 'a little hassle' I've described a physical assault and being excluded from an appropriate loo and sent off to an accessible one for not meeting gender norms.

"Interestingly, not everyone is as interested in your wife's peace of mind as you. wink"

That was a bit of a joke, by the way.

"I can see that feminine presenting 'natal' women are at the top of the hierarchy, are masculine presenting women above or below trans women? " Utter bollocks. Gender is a hierarchy with men on top.

I've never challenged a butch looking woman anywhere. I;m not the enemy of butch women. But we do not need to allow any man in the loo to make butch women feel better.

I'm sorry your wife experienced this things, honestly. But you are presenting them as a reason to not object to natal males in the loos. It doesn't make any sense, if you really feel this way why segregate loos at all! (That's no a serious suggestion by the way because at 5 foot something I'd be at a real disadvantage.

Sorry catching up on the gay finger.

"“If your ring finger is longer than your pointer,” she began, “you’re a lesbian. Like, genetically.”

Oh I am lesbian according to this. When do I tell dh? He already suspects!

omgfacts.com/does-your-finger-length-predict-your-sexuality-3eb5f66d1538

Dp teaches 4 f-m dcs at the moment. All year 9-11. He says it's an utter mine field, particularly as the parents aren't all supportive.

He addresses them all by their preferred names, uses the preferred pronouns but then slipped up by greeting them all with "morning ladies and gentlemen" the other day and there was outcry.

There was also an objection about the French language having le and la but that was one objection too far for him.

www.independent.co.uk/news/education/teacher-transgender-student-girl-accident-call-trans-wrong-gender-joshua-sutcliffe-a8054146.html

I wonder if anyone who is transgender would be able to comment on this story and how they see it. I am not sure I agree with the teacher but I did feel rather sorry for him.

Still and Italian,

Many thanks for your replies yesterday!
my life is a bit bonkers at the moment but this high-quality discussion is cheering me up (I'm funny like that).

Anyway, I'm still labouring the same point because I'm slow.

I think Still is saying you have to treat everyone as a decent individual until proven otherwise?
But the counter-argument (which I think people like Datun on the feminist board would make) is that that sounds fine in principle but the reality is that it doesn't work because women are vulnerable on a deep structural level. So when we go for sex-segregation we are refusing to treat men as innocent - we regard them with suspicion. it is a price all men pay for the behaviour of bad men. Historically they didn't mind paying it (as they were also suspicious of each other).

But now we have trans people who don't just quietly slot in on the women bench, who also claim deep structural prejudice against them and a need for greater protection/validation.

And as usual it is women who are asked to budge up and men not asked to at all. grrrr.

'Trans isn't a fucking verb?? What does that even mean ???

It means it’s not a fucking verb. Transition is, trans is not - it’s an adjective, short for transgender.

Your delivery of that clarification did make me dinosaurs! (Sorry lynmilne, you did ask...)

The structural sexism stuff is interesting and I think that people forget how deep it was and is, when they talk about sex segregation of public space.

Women weren't given sex segregate public loos to keep them safe. The first 'ladies room" open in a department store, the intention was to keep middle class women shopping for longer. It was a 'ladies room' not to afford women comfort or privacy but to shield men from the frightening stuff that might go on beneath underskirts.

Ladies waiting rooms in train stations and carriage on trains, were introduced so that men didn't have to listen to women's voices. Contemporaneous literature, is full of descriptions high pitched voices causing all kinds of health ill, if endured for too long.

Although there are now some fantastic girls' school, segregated education was about teaching girls 'their place' and not allowing them to distract boys from the serious work of learning.

To imagine that any single sex public space was for the comfort or protection is to buy into a lie. Those spaces we designed so that women could be contained and men could own the pubic sphere.

The patrichartical use of male violence, is economic and efficient in terms of effort. Men don't need to hit women, (of course that doesn't mean that some don't do it because they enjoy it) but mostly the threat of violence is enough to keep women contained.

The semi-myth of the bogey man keeps women scared enough that they stay in, stay cover and stay sober because otherwise, they are convinced that they will be attacked and it will be their fault.

The perception of women as always being a victim, is harmful to women. Male violence is real and it does impact on a number of women but that number is dwarfed by the number of women who are controlled by the fear of violence.

The patriarchy fears trans women because the patriarchy fears anything feminine or anything that doesn't buy into the lie of masculine superiority. Consider, how someone abandoning their ranks really feels. Consider the stories you read in the right wing press around transwomen, the narrative of the great penis, by its proximity causing panic and mayhem. Consider how few stories you read about powerful women, compared to 'bitches' or victims. Consider who gains from that narrative. If you fear trans rights activists or even just find them a bit irritating, consider them pissing out of the tent, rather than pissing in. Consider who it benefits to have the most vocal section of feminists arguing with the most vocal section of trans activists. Consider the concept of devide and conquer.

If you think that the patriarchy has done you any favours by giving you 'safe spaces', you're not looking at them or it hard enough.

My view isn't that women should shift up on the bench becases we're nurturing, fluffy and 'nice' like that. My view is that any step out of 'our place' is a step up.

Anyway, I'm still labouring the same point because I'm slow.

A slow mind doesn't dwell on new concepts. A slow mind closes down at the first sniff of anything it doesn't understand.

Stillscreaming, I was not presuming you would have to go to Harley Street and pay. The Charing Cross Gender Identity Clinic still exists - where I went for a few years. Yes it cost a lot in train fares as then it was the only one, but a day out in London every few weeks was okay.

And today there are clinics across the UK. My cousin who has a form of MS goes to the one in Leeds, because her specialist is in the same wing, not to go to the GIC there. She meets many patients being assessed freely there.

If you have had this assessment you don't need to pay for another in Harley Street. Or at least you did not when I got my GRC in 2004.

I know that the WHO is likely to follow the several countries who have declassified this as a mental illness probably this year. And I think it is the right step because that has too long been assumption of cause. It was certainly what I assumed they would find wrong with me and have a way to treat as there was no gender theory self identity stuff around 50 years ago when I was first seeing doctors.

They never found one despite looking real hard and they kept apologising to my parents for failing and for suggesting that they could only propose transition despite that then being an unknown quantity and their fear it could destroy my life.

We were closer then in time passed to when Lili Elbe had died in experimental surgery (as in The Danish Girl) than to today's very different multiplicity of choices. So this was one hell of a thing to put onto the shoulders of an unsuspecting family.

Yet it worked like a magic wand. The transition took time and was not easy. But the consequence was what appears from my side to be a cure for a problem the cause of which nobody still knows. And if it is a mental delusion then it is extraordinary how well it can be resolved.

However, I saw enough other people who seemed to be saying what I was in the clinics and who were very different in many ways - from demeanour, character, assurance of identity, state of confusion over who they were and what they wanted and so on.

It was obvious to me that some of these really DID have mental problems for which the ideas of 'changing sex' was seen by them as a ticket out of their anxiety.

One young boy who I spent a month in a psychiatric unit with was like that. We both went through all the same psychiatric tests, medical assessments, various treatment options up to when it came to electro convulsive therapy. They were going to try that on both of us but only did in the end on him as a visiting gender identity specialist from New Zealand persuaded them not to with me after he tested us both. I never really found out why this happened but it was a turning point. Weeks later I started transition. That boy did not.

But he kept writing to me for years telling me his ups and downs. I still have his letters. He vacillated to and fro from one day wanting to demand surgery to the next telling me he had met a girl at work and was taking her out. It lasted a week and he was back to being a cross dresser in secret. Something I never understood as I never did it.

A couple of years later when I was in Charing Cross having my surgery he wrote almost every day - trying to stop me 'making a big mistake' for the first few - then wanting all the intimate details.

It got a bit creepy and I stopped writing back and eventually moved away 30 miles. Thinking that was the last I would hear from him.

It was for 10 years or so. By then I was very happy had written several books and done some TV and radio shows and was settled with my partner. I had forgotten all about those letters.

But there was a story in the local paper about me in the town where I now lived. Not about me being trans. Just about my latest book I think. They also had an excellent photographer who took a very flattering snap of me.

Well this lad (now around 30 and still a lad) saw it and contacted me again via the paper asking me to meet him for a date in a park. I had been with my fiancé for 8 years by then and so obviously did not go.

Years later when I was a full time carer I passed the time doing genealogy for the nurses and physios that were visiting. And I decided to see if I could learn what happened to this lad. I could not trace him anywhere but could find no evidence he died. What I did chillingly discover (glad I did not know then) was that I hope by coincidence he was living in the same small village as I was when he asked to meet me in that park, despite it being in a different county and 30 miles from Manchester where we were when in the psych unit.

Long story, but it shows I think that whilst I do think it is possible trans is not always a consequence of a mental illness I am certain it is very probable that sometimes thinking you are trans is a side effect of having one.

So I feel there were good reasons why someone like this lad was deterred from transition at the psych unit, when I wasn't. And why I was told that 90% of those coming to see them wanting to 'change sex' were sent away as unsuitable candidates with other treatable mental problems. I don't know if that is exactly true or they erred on the side of caution.

But I do think that assessment is an important safeguard for both the person who believes they have gender dysphoria in case they have something else that can be treated. And for the rest of society so they are not put at risk.

That's really interesting Jaycee, thank you, and a fair defense of retaining a medical evaluation in obtaining a GRC I think.

Also I wrote on the petition thread the I recall someone vaguely implying that removing that requirement could be cynically interpreted as the government removing their obligation to provide that assessment in the first place. So backhandedly giving themselves a way to provide less medical engagement and support. I wonder if it was you I'm remembering, or perhaps if I coloured something you said with my own scepticism of the Tories?

Stillscreaming I'm really glad you've harked back to the original function of sex segregated spaces - I found it useful to look into the same when considering sports.

Anyway, I like it particularly because I was going to say a similar sort of thing. Sex segregation in most casual circumstances is most heavily a consequence of patriarchal oppression rather than a rejection of it. I was imagining what it would be like if there were no public toilets for women today, what would women be calling for? I for one would be telling the men I was damn well using theirs, and that if it wasn't currently set up that I would be safe and dignified whilst doing so I'd be damn well making sure they made it so it was!!

...but that's just the kind of pain-in-the-arse feminist I am

I don't want "girl's stuff" - I wasn't brought up to want stuff for women only "just because", so I don't value it as something to fight to be entitled to. I am entitled to all of the stuff, and right now that means the men's stuff, but it should be everybody's stuff!

That's not to say when women need it they really need it, and it's a hugely beneficial and necessary thing to be able to invoke to protect or enable women in a hostile society.

But that's what annoyed me about that bloody "sex matters" thread. When it matters it really matters - refuges, prisons, sports etc. - and those are the times the law recognises it matters and protects. But I have spent my life arguing that my sex DOESN'T matter. And if it doesn't matter enough to reach the legal materiality test of "a proportionate means to a legitimate aim" then it does not matter to me. And I think insisting it does because is a backwards step for women.

@ Jayceedove

I hope you don't mind me saying, that we're a couple of old foggys now and things are different for young people nowadays.

I'm going to use some terms that are a bit old fashioned, I don't do it to be offensive but for clarity and because I'm plenty verbose enough.

The absolutely ridged gender stereotypes that Charring X worked with twenty or thirty years ago are a thing of history. They had ideas of feminity that born women has thrown off during the second wave of feminism. They were only allowing people to transition if they were willing to transition back to the 1950s. The idea that 'to be a woman' you had to wear a skirt every day would have got you mouthful back in the 1980s and could see you getting weeks worth of Twitter outrage now. It wasn't just skirts, there were a whole bunch of bizarre behavioural rules that were basically a product of older male, consultants, nearing the end of their careers, harking back to a time when women were obedient and kept a nice house.

While some primary transsexuals were desperate enough to conform to that, there were many would be considered perfectly normal now or perfectly normal if they had been born female, who were refused treatment because they were deemed to be 'mentally ill' for not towing that very strict party line.

Although I was born and socialise female, I would never have met the criteria for treatment at Charring X, with my lack to true commitment to skirt wearing, doing as I'm told or ridged heterosexuality. I would have been out on my ear, with a personality disorder diagnoses, just for being a normal (ish) product of the time I was living in.

Just an info update; I meant to go looking for a source that, despite it being recommended by the select committee that the Equality Act be amended, this wasn't being progressed. I'd read it multiple times on the fem boards but a poster here says it was confirmed by their MP (I hope they don't mind me quoting here!):

"Reply from Baroness Williams (Minister for Equalities) includes "The recommendations of the Select Committee are a helpful contribution to the debate on how to improve outcomes for transgender people. However, the recommendations do not constitute Government policy.. The Government currently has no plans to amend the Equality Act 2010 provision relating to single-sex spaces. I assure Mrs XXX that the consultation process will be as broad and as open as possible, and we want to understand the views of all groups on our proposals.""

I hope that's reassuring!

Stillscreaming. I do appreciate that many things have changed and take on offence at the comment on age. Do not feel it, but I do know it. I guess the experience of being trans prepares you a little for being one age in your mind and another in your body. :)

When I saw all this stuff starting up on Digital Spy 2 - 3 years ago it rather caught me on the hop as I had not thought about or discussed with anyone trans matters for years. It just long since stopped being a day to day part of my life.

But I found a sensible trans discussion forum - I had never looked for one before as I had no need. Here I quietly educated myself about how trans people were seeing things today and why there appeared to be such a big battleground developing. So I gradually appreciated some of the many differences between then and now.

It was only fair to get this perspective before commenting openly on Digital Spy because I knew once I outed myself as trans there after posting for years without that ever being mentioned they would expect me to know things about it that, of course, I do not.

I can only ever explain what I saw and experienced and offer my views. So I needed to try to understand why things seem so different to a new generation.

Consequently - yes - I accept that it is not as simple as in the past everything was perfect and today it is not. There are good and bad points about both eras.

As for the 1950s view of a woman foisted onto you by Charing Cross I have heard that said before. But I am not entirely sure I experienced it.

Yes, Dr John Randall, the psychiatrist in charge there was a kind of gatekeeper. Perhaps I was unusual for 1974 when I first went to Charing Cross because I had already had extensive testing and had already transitioned full time before I first met Randall.

He was a bit of an old fashioned sexist and had an odd brusque manner. Anyone who wants to see need just go on You Tube and search for 'A Change of Sex' - a BBC TV documentary (the first ever I think) made in 1979. It is on there.

The trans woman Julia Grant was turned away from Charing Cross as I recall and there are scenes of her meeting Randall. You do not actually see him. You just hear him being rather demeaning to her. And I know a lot of people watch that and think he was wicked.

I don't. He was an old fashioned educated man and was very much of the opinion of many on this forum. He thought this was an illness, probably mental, but not exactly what. He was adamant that you were a man and always would be. And that you were likely facing a life of torment and missed opportunity in the world of men. He particularly hated it if he thought you were intelligent as many of his patients were from those I met in those years. Several were at university. But he genuinely believed that this was the only real hope of a normal life in the cases that had got that far.

He had an old fashioned way of viewing femininity, absolutely. He would comment on and criticise your appearance or compliment it. For him it was almost all about passing. And I got the impression he had to be sure you would not stand out because that was the only way transition would be a success in a universe where any rights for trans people was miles off the agenda.

In fact Randall had been the one that put them off. He was happy to brag to me about his time in court in which he had helped get some lord or other (Rowallan I think) a divorce on the grounds his 'wife' was really a man. So he actually stopped me from getting married to my partner as his court testimony out it off for another 30 years.

But that was just him. I also had many happy chats with him, especially after the first few when he got to know you and had I guess made up his mind. Often I would go all that way and spend 20 minutes not mentioning trans matters and chatting about his roses (he was a big fan) or his Christian beliefs, as he knew of my family background in the church and he once said I was the first trans person he had met who was the product of a Sunday School education. Though I have no idea if he meant that good or bad.

Then he would ramble off into some tale which I would never figure out of it was true or legend in which he explained how he 'knew' from his medical involvement that a very famous person connected to the royal family was what we would now call trans but nobody would ever find out. He told me who it was, of course, but I am not saying as I have no idea how true this tale was.

All that said, never once did he advise me on what to wear or how to behave and those 'do better' or 'nice lipstick' comments aside I was not put under any pressure to be anything other than myself. I certainly did not only wear dresses as in the 70s there were some nice pant suits and photos from the day show I never felt obliged to wear one thing or another.

So, yes, to a degree I get where you are coming from. Pretty much everyone involved in trans matters then - doctors, psychiatrists, surgeons were men. And I felt a little awkward being examined by them intimately often - one reason I can entirely see the reason for protection against some safe spaces in the GRA.

But there was no alternative then - unlike today where there is more of a balance and you are not being judged as part of a beauty parade.

I certainly don't have great physical attributes in terms of ease of passing. I know that but it never stopped me appearing in public a lot and I can only assume that self confidence in being yourself is the key to transition given how little hassle I ever got compared with today where there seem many expressions of that sort of thing from transitioners. Being young helped a lot, of course. But I was never put under any pressure to have enhancements of any kind or to look like any of the model like trans girls on his wall.

We all had our photo taken first meeting and then again on last one years later and when your picture appeared on his wall you knew you were about to be passed over to the surgeon for GRS.

Italian, ref your post about the story of the teacher linked above.

I suggest you go to Digital Spy - they have a good forum search and you do not need to be registered to read the forum.

Back in November when this broke and in a subsequent thread when he quit there was a lot of discussion on the case there. In the General Discussion forum.

Just search under the teacher name and you should find it.

I post on there with the same username so you will see that I was initially very supportive of him. I had a personal reason having trained as a teacher and being stopped in year two of training because I had to explain my transition to the education authorities and they just were not ready in 1973 to have a trans teacher.

But I also had an experience teaching two weeks in an inner city very religious school where I was ordered not to bring science into a class about Moses parting the Red Sea! (I was there to teach science). So I saw the religion and teaching thing first hand from the opposite direction to this case. And knew that your personal views as a teacher have to take second place to the course your are teaching and the rules of the school.

My views changed somewhat, as you will see, on seeing his appearance on This Morning, where it was clear he was struggling in the face of a Christian Charity using him to further their agenda.

For some time they have been looking for someone who would put their career on the line and that they could use to have a new Scopes trial using transgender issues instead of evolution.

I think I made clear that I had no problem with him thinking what he did or saying it outside school but that in school you have to be willing to follow policy and act accordingly in front of the class.

But by then it had become a court case waiting to happen and though he was never fired and the school were happy to reach a compromise that Christian group were calling the shots and I expect we have not heard the last of this story.

The problem with prisons is they are not necessarily taken on a case by case basis. If a person has a GRC they are automatically sent to the prison of their adopted sex. A double rapist Martin Ponting transitioned in prison and got a GRC and is now in women's prison as Jessica Winfield along with his penis. He's
allegedly been put in segregation after sexually harassing women. Who could have predicted it?

However trans prisoners also have the choice to go the prison of their birth sex if they so wish. I imagine this is because trans men might feel at risk in men's prisons. Suddenly when their safety is at stake their identity might not seem so important after all. There are currently no trans men in men's prisons.

However trans women do choose to go to womens prisons unsurprisingly with even those without GRC demanding it - these are the ones who are taken on a case by case basis. In Scotland they have adopted a policy based on self id and consequently have a higher rate of trans women prisoners with several clearly faking. For example Mighty Almighty as he previously demanded to be known- called the most dangerous prisoner in Scotland who is now claiming hes a woman.

Another Paris Green, a torturer and murderer was moved to women's prison and went to two women's prisons in which had sex with female prisoners in both before being moved back to the male estate.

There are 2 issues with the law and prisons as I see it. Firstly getting a GRC involves cross dressing for 2 years and claiming one feels dysphoria to a doctor - not that hard if one is in prison and has time on ones hands. And it confers special priveleges like money towards make up, a chance to claim discrimination, potential segregation for ones protection and being allowed to shower alone. And of course the chance to claim one most be moved to women's prison. Once the GRC goes through then it's a legal right to move to women's prison.

But more prroblematic is the self id proposal which would see any male who signed a form given a GRC and the automatic right to be housed in women's prison. Given that about half of trans women prisoners are sex offenders that's a danger to women. The gender specialists and other prisoners think most of these suddenly dysphoric trans women are fakers.

When people say there has been no problems in Ireland what they don't realise is that Ireland put in rules to say that people go to the prison is there natal sex or potentially according to their genitalia. Which means the only males who have any hope of going to women's prisons are those who have had their male sex organs removed. People who transition in prison however will not be moved. So the reason there hasn't been a problem is because of this. Although tbf has there been any studies to see if there have been any problems? There was supposed to be a 2 year review of the law but I've not seen one cone out.

If sex offenders in prison are taking advantage of the system then what's to say sex offenders outside of prison and won't too? I don't know if anyone has noticed but they do tend to go to great lengths to access victims - like becoming teachers and training as youth workers, getting high up positions in social services which is why we have CRB/ dBS checks. It idea that sex offenders will not take advantage on the basis of not wanting real trans women look bad seems a little far fetched.

If a person has a GRC they are automatically sent to the prison of their adopted sex.

No they aren't, the prison service decides what prison people are sent to on a case by case basis.

However trans prisoners also have the choice to go the prison of their birth sex if they so wish.

No prisoner is given of a choice of which prison they get sent to.

rturer and murderer was moved to women's prison and went to two women's prisons in which had sex with female prisoners in both before being moved back to the male estate.

That's a story from The Sun that has never been confirmed. Those prisoners were moved, the prison service don't comment on why.

Once the GRC goes through then it's a legal right to move to women's prison.

No one has a legal right to be in a women's prison. Anyone deemed too violent or disruptive for General Population is moved to a specialist prison, which are all men's prisons.

When people say there has been no problems in Ireland what they don't realise is that Ireland put in rules to say that people go to the prison is there natal sex or potentially according to their genitalia.

Prison places in Ireland are allocated on a case by case basis.

If sex offenders in prison are taking advantage of the system then what's to say sex offenders outside of prison and won't too?

Both prison officers and the health care professionals who treat prisoners are very conscious of the fact that prisons will fake conditions for special privileges. The trans treating HCP even reported to the select committee on this, the link is up thread.

We keep the most violent and volatile people in the country locked up in close proximity to each other, with fairly limited resources. The fact so so many of them come out alive is evidence that the prison service does an amazing job, to imagine that they're going to be thrown by someone looking for a wig or a GRC, does them a disservice.

@ Desiderio

I assume you didn't see, Ratrolypoly's post about the self ID legislation being dead in the water, which makes much of this discussion moot. Here it is:

^Just an info update; I meant to go looking for a source that, despite it being recommended by the select committee that the Equality Act be amended, this wasn't being progressed. I'd read it multiple times on the fem boards but a poster here says it was confirmed by their MP (I hope they don't mind me quoting here!):

"Reply from Baroness Williams (Minister for Equalities) includes "The recommendations of the Select Committee are a helpful contribution to the debate on how to improve outcomes for transgender people. However, the recommendations do not constitute Government policy.. The Government currently has no plans to amend the Equality Act 2010 provision relating to single-sex spaces. I assure Mrs XXX that the consultation process will be as broad and as open as possible, and we want to understand the views of all groups on our proposals.""^

Once the GRC goes through then it's a legal right to move to women's prison.

But more prroblematic is the self id proposal which would see any male who signed a form given a GRC and the automatic right to be housed in women's prison

These statements are a little misleading. Them having a GRC would mean that under the current rules they would be on course to be housed in the female estate. This could be derailed and them still housed in the male estate if there were assessed and deemed to pose sufficient risk.

The really important bit in that is the under the current rules bit. Because your statements make it look as if everybody's hands are tied and that the right of someone with a GRC to be considered their acquired gender overrides everything else.

It doesn't.

In fact prisons might be the biggest red herring going, because they have by far the greatest ability in the law to override the Equality Act using the "proportionate means to a legitimate aim" clause.

So right now, prisons have decided that a GRC means a starting assumption of moving you to the estate of your chosen gender, except where risk dictates otherwise. That's just what how they've decided they want to handle things. It's not a legal necessity, it isn't beyond reproach, and it would (in my opinion) be by far and away to easiest thing to justify changing if they decided to do so. They must have made that decision based on their assessment of the actual risks involved. I'm not saying they assessed correctly or whatever, or that they do in every individual circumstance, but they have the power!!! By god, they have the power. No-one would argue with the prison system housing a violent offender in the estate of their choosing, and it would be easily defensive in law.

The sad truth is probably that they don't care enough about women, but as I've said elsewhere we should - as feminists - be taking this sad letting-down of vulnerable women to the very authority responsible; the PRISON SYSTEM; not visiting it on some single community.

Play the ball, not the man!

@Stillscreaming they're not proposing changing the Equality Act at all, so the recommendation about sex-based exemptions being removed for transgender people. I think they haven't batted away the idea of streamlining the GRC process though.

Or perhaps I've misunderstood your post, but I thought I'd clarify anyway :)

“Women weren't given sex segregate public loos to keep them safe.”

Oh so true.

But I believe 100% that some sex-segregated spaces are life-savers. How do they differ from “women know your place” spaces? It is something to do with women being in control of them, someone else could put it better.

Lots of kindness on this thread :)

Bloody men though!