Datun, I am not denying biology or its relevance and I have often said I am in favour of protected spaces in intimate situations.
Though when I raised on that other thread the reality that my definition in law, male or female, came up when seeking to become a full time carer for 14 years to my mother I was basically called a liar as it was perfectly okay for a man to do that. Which I know and was not my point.
It may not have stopped it happening, but it did get involved and not from me. The GP and district nurse helped me fast track my GRC so as to make life easier. So it helped. That's all - it had a practical benefit not just to me but to a 100% biological woman in a highly distressed state in a care home she did not want to be in desperate to come live with me as soon as possible.
I cited this simply because I would never have foreseen this. And I have to suspect there will be other unforeseen circumstances where trans women (and men) might benefit from the definition granted within the act.
Not by proclaiming - see I am a woman. Most people treat you as they fond you and nobody has ever asked to see my GRC and likely never will. But by giving that reassurance if ever needed for some practical reason or another.
That is all I was saying. Not that everyone by right should have a GRC. But that we live in a world where - yes - biology matters in a number of situations.
I never have denied that and said I was happy with exclusivity decisions taken at source such as smear tests and refuges within the scope of the GRA and maybe even further ones.
However, above and beyond biology there is also the practicality of living a life day to day where who you are and what you are is all that matters. And that essentially means as perceived by others.
Anyone can think a trans person is a men, woman or a chimpanzee, and in some situations that is critical. I agree. As noted above that is why there are exclusions.
But if you divide society entirely in that way as a protection of women's feelings in some regards is that not going beyond sensible need into areas where you are almost over protecting most women who are not demanding such global segregation?
I absolutely agree as I have repeatedly said that I think extending the GRA to include self ID and so many, many more people covered by it whilst reducing to very little the built in safeguards and exclusions is flat out wrong and will argue against.
I have even said I would not reject reasonable strengthening of those safeguards.
The fight here is between a small minority of activists on both sides. I think we all know that. Just as I suspect we are starting to realise the government have seen the concern and bringing forth this bill is now miles away and may never happen.
Though the arguments around it will go on I suspect if we do not settle on some agreed decisions by sensible debate whilst waiting to see if they ever get to the point of a bill.
However, the mood to basically axe the GRA that is evolving is not simply going to turn the clock back to 2003 - where you might point out that I and others have said we got on okay before then without rights with the odd incident here and there which I have been assailed for mentioning.
That is true but is not what will happen if the aim to repeal the GRA is achieved.
We will still have all the 600,000 self identifiers out there and there will be no discrimination between them and thos of us who have been using facilities like toilets, changing rooms and hospital wards for 50 years even before the GRA.
So for the people least causing issues the clock will be turned back half a century because of a mutual concern over the act being altered.
I am sure it will never happen as any government doing that would see totally non litigious transsexuals who have not caused a fuss for years mobilise in ways that will scare them to death because our case will seem very reasonable to many ordinary people.
Hence it makes total sense to be on the same side here and fight the winnable fight to stop self ID not alienate those who would agree and might be taken seriously because of their unique perspective.
Of course, we will not all oppose self ID. Some will feel it is appropriate. Even I feel a separate act with agreed conditions attached might be found that satisfies all. Just that modifying the GRA to be that act cannot work because it is trying to merge two different things.
Regardless of saying that trans women are not being called men - you know we are by many activists. The term TIM is used extensively on that thread instead of trans women because you want to emphasise that concept of us being men. And avoid any deference to calling 'men' women.
Biologically you are right. We are not disagreeing.
In circumstances where biology is paramount there should be choice to exclude. We are also not disagreeing.
But in everyday, practical situations where actions are taken instinctively on the basis of who you appear to be and biology hardly ever even is a consideration - going to the loo, buying clothes etc then trans woman are regarded as women by pretty much everyone but the activists.
I have no problem with the term trans woman and, as you will have noticed over the past week. use it all the time describing myself. Though the reality is 99.999% of the people I interact with day in day out and year in year out just say woman.
Whether out of deference or because it is their real opinion I am not bothered. The point is they do not need to feel the need to seek division and provoke disquiet by any reference to biology where that is not needed.
This is the difference between respect and making an effort to live in harmony - which we want - and strict delineation of the world by gender regardless.
Personally I have no objection to what you think or say and would not go screaming bigotry.
But I suspect most reasonable people would regard saying trans woman in that situation less divisive or nasty than trans identifying male. So if you wonder why it seems to upset trans woman to be called male openly it is NOT because we insist on being considered biological women. It is just that we have feelings, live in the day to day real world where usually that is secondary and feel pain at being singled out because of concerns over men usurping women in ways that I agree do happen and are wrong.
But is usually not at all what transwomen are ever trying to do.