To ask about GRA

[HelmetHair1]

Hello all. Long-time lurker but first time poster. I know this isn't strictly an AIBU but I wanted to get people's views on GRA because I'm just filling out the consultation form now.

Like many people, I have some concerns about whether self-ID will enable men to access women's spaces with malicious intentions. I don't have any problem sharing a loo or changing room with a trans woman, but I don't want a man to be able to say 'I self ID as a woman so I should be allowed in' - that would seem obviously stupid and dangerous.

I've just seen that Q6 of the consultation doc asks whether it should be a requirement of self-ID that you make a statutory declaration that you intend to live as your acquired gender for the rest of your life. Knowingly lying when making a statutory declaration is a criminal offence punishable by up to two years in prison.

I didn't really understand the nuances of this so I did some research. Organisations like Stonewall support this being a requirement, so long as it's the only requirement (e.g. no need to provide details of medical treatments or evidence of having lived as your acquired gender for a specified period of time).

I am trying to decide whether this will be enough. I'm inclined to think that this would help solve the problem of men trying to abuse women's spaces - if you have to make a statutory declaration, and falsely doing so is a criminal offence, that will presumably deter people from pretending to be trans in order to be abusive? And it would stop people from claiming to be women or men as and when it suits them - they would have to make a lifelong commitment.

On the other hand, we don't know how seriously any breach of this rule would be taken so it's hard to assess how much of a deterrent it would be. And it wouldn't stop men pretending to be trans over the long term in order to be able to access women's spaces (although I don't know how likely this eventuality actually is?)

What are others' thoughts? Is this a sufficient safeguard? I'm leaning towards thinking that as long as there is a requirement for a statutory declaration I am happy for self-ID to pass, but I still have some niggling uncertainties. Would be interested in hearing others' opinions!

(Sorry this ended up being so long)

Trans women aren't biologically predisposed to be rapists. Men aren't biologically predisposed to be rapists either.

And yet 98% of sexual abuse is carried out by males. Sort that out and then come back to me about sharing spaces.

Are you involved at all with FPFW? You seem to take t his rather personally

Someone corrects your 'facts' and they are 'taking it personally'?

Interesting user name, HelmetHair1.

Really, why? It's a reference to the fact that I wear a riding hat on a daily basis and usually look like a sweaty mess as a result.

Its nice that you don't think mixed sex spaces are a problem, but they are not open to use by many BAME women.

I don't really know what you mean - are you talking about religious reasons?

I'll thank you not to give away my rights if its all the same to you

I think it's possible to uphold the rights of trans women without giving away the rights of other women. I'm not really sure what you'd lose by self-ID coming into law.

Have a look at the quotes I posted earlier - multiple organisations supporting women in crisis in Scotland confirming that the GRA won't change the way they operate and isn't causing problems. I have found that has really reassured me about the real-life consequences here.

I can't get over the phrase, "I really want to be on the right side of history". It's such an odd way of expressing a wish to do what is right. Almost like a threat.

I'm not really sure what you'd lose by self-ID coming into law.

There can be no female spaces if everyone can be a female.

And yet 98% of sexual abuse is carried out by males. Sort that out and then come back to me about sharing spaces.

I know - but this isn't because of their biology. Lots of rapists want us to believe that it is. It really suits rapists for us to say that rape is biological predisposition that men have, because it gives them a good excuse to say 'I can't help it, I'm biologically male*

But violence against women isn't biological; it's gendered. 98% of rapists are of the male gender. And the male gender is not what trans women identify as.

That's not to say trans women can't be abusers and rapists - we know that they can. But those who are, are rapists because they're rapists, not because they're biologically male. Just like men are rapists because they're rapists and not because they're biologically male.

And so we shouldn't use the fact that a very tiny minority of trans women rape as an excuse to deny rights to all trans women (just like we don't allow the actions of a tiny minority to dictate the rights of any group, because it's not fair or proportionate).

Go campaign for unisex spaces you can all share, show us how safe it is and invite us to join you. That would be a genuine grass roots movement, not a supremacy movement.

The fact that many more men than women are rapists is NOT related to biology [...] Therefore biology shouldn't be the determining factor here.

Biology is what has enabled their rapes, though, in a huge majority of cases.

The biological difference of average typical size and strength between males and females made these rapists able to physically dominate their victims. Or it made their victims so fearful of fatal violence or permanent injury that they were unable to physically resist.

It's such a fucking insult to so many rape and assault victims to act like their attacks were purely due to social constructs (men feeling sexually entitled, their violence enabled or ignored) and not also the genuine physical disparity between men and women. This is what permits men to rape, in so many cases.

Pretending the physical difference between male and female-bodied people is inconsequential or non-existent is dangerous for women and grossly unfair to all victims of male violence.

I can't get over the phrase, "I really want to be on the right side of history". It's such an odd way of expressing a wish to do what is right. Almost like a threat.

In what way is it a threat? That certainly isn't my intention and I have no idea how it could be interpreted that way.

You dont need to ask about the GRA; you have made your mind up and are here to lecture women to be nice.

What are you doing to change the way religions and cultures expect women to behave? Why dont you tackle that first?
What kind of sadist takes away women only bathrooms from women who have to keep their hair covered in front of men?

I'm not really sure what you'd lose by self-ID coming into law.

The ability for women to define themselves by their biology.

Also, why not just post a pro-GRA-reform thread and be sincere about it?

I can't stand all this 'hey guys, I didn't know what to make of the situation (totally understand your concerns!), but it turns out it's all okay! I'm still quite undecided, I'm just a newbie, but actually I'm going to write lots of long posts supporting the it's-all-okay-so-shut-up side, and nothing's really happening to affect women anyway, and by the way don't you think this is like all the other civil rights movements, and I hope we'll all be on the right side of history!'.

Biology is what has enabled their rapes, though, in a huge majority of cases.

The biological difference of average typical size and strength between males and females made these rapists able to physically dominate their victims. Or it made their victims so fearful of fatal violence or permanent injury that they were unable to physically resist.

It's such a fucking insult to so many rape and assault victims to act like their attacks were purely due to social constructs (men feeling sexually entitled, their violence enabled or ignored) and not also the genuine physical disparity between men and women. This is what permits men to rape, in so many cases.

Pretending the physical difference between male and female-bodied people is inconsequential or non-existent is dangerous for women and grossly unfair to all victims of male violence.

I think this is a very dangerous line to go down - in many, many instances of rape the physical strength of the attacker has nothing to do with it. And women already face enough blame for not adequately fighting back against their rapists without adding in the idea that rape happens because men are stronger than women.

Lots of rapes occur because women can't consent due to alcohol or drugs - that has nothing to do with physical size. Lots of rapes involve women being intimidated into silence by financially, emotionally or psychologically abusive partners. That has nothing to do with physical size. Lots of rape victims freeze up when the abuse is initiated and never fight back, even if they have a physical advantage over their partner.

I think it presents a really inaccurate portrayal of rape to say it happens because strong men physically overcome weaker women. That might well be the case in some rapes, but it's not true of all or even the majority, and women shouldn't have to feel like there has to have been no hope of physically fighting off their attacker in order for their experiences to be recognised.

Furthermore - what I meant by rape not being biological is that there is no biological urge that leads men to rape. Rapists often use the excuse that they couldn't help it because of their sex drive or male urges etc but this is a lie which seeks to excuse rape as a natural consequence of biology.

The biology that means 50,000 women each year lose their jobs because they are the ones whose bodies give birth:www.theguardian.com/money/2015/jul/24/maternity-leave-discrimination-54000-women-lose-jobs-each-year-ehrc-report

Working clicky:

www.theguardian.com/money/2015/jul/24/maternity-leave-discrimination-54000-women-lose-jobs-each-year-ehrc-report

Good cop, bad cop, innit, shincha?

Also, why not just post a pro-GRA-reform thread and be sincere about it?

Because this debate isn't as black and white as it's made out to be. I DO have concerns about self-ID, and I've been frank about them on this thread. But we've gone beyond that into debates which don't really have a lot to do with self-ID.

It's ok to support trans rights and still have questions. There should be room a range of opinions.

I was reminded by another thread to fill out the consultation paper today. That paper raised a lot of questions I hadn't considered before. So I read a lot of things to inform my answers. And actually I've learned today that a lot of what I thought was misinformed.

I'm really surprised that others AREN'T reassured by front line rape crisis centers being in support of the GRA. This morning, these centers would have been my number one concern. But now I feel like that was a misplaced concern.

Myriad also cleared up quite a lot of points for me. I can't be the only one who thought this morning that the GRA would have immediate and serious repercussions for things like changing rooms. It now seems that that's not the case, on the basis that these have been accessible without any requirement for proof since the Equality Act. I agree that it doesn't seem that the GRA will change that.

I started this thread specifically asking questions which have been answered in lots of ways - that was my whole point!

Maternity discrimination is absolutely awful and we should definitely be fighting it - one of the great sadnesses I feel at leaving the EU is that regulations to protect women will now lose their teeth, and I don't trust the Tories to appropriately safeguard them.

The biology that makes people second class citizens around the world. We need words to describe this biology to be able to address the inequalities.

HelmetHair, you drew the parallels between anyone who thinks that men can't be women with segregation in the American south. In fact, you've been arguing hard that men ARE women just like black folks are equal to white folks and therefore self-id is just like desegregation.

I've pointed out how "equal to" and "the same as" is faulty thinking. Your parallel between GRA reform and desegregation is flawed.

I don't think the GRA is going to stop people being able to campaign on maternity discrimination. I have seen this point made before, but I don't really see the connection?

When all things are equal I'll be happy for males to call themselves whatever they like, until then we need to be able to have words to

Because maternity affects women (sex)

If sex is replaced by gender, it’s no longer something that affects just one gender (under the crazy definition of gender) so you can argue that you’re not discriminating.

all the law that protects women was repealed and rolled into the equality act

If the equality act is rendered useless it’s bye bye to women’s rights

I have seen this point made before, but I don't really see the connection?

You posted: I'm not really sure what you'd lose by self-ID coming into law.

I posted: The ability for women to define themselves by their biology.

How can we fight for anything if the state of having female biology means nothing in law?

in many, many instances of rape the physical strength of the attacker has nothing to do with it. And women already face enough blame for not adequately fighting back against their rapists without adding in the idea that rape happens because men are stronger than women.

You're really showing your true colours here: throwing women under the bus in a muddled and offensive attempt to deny the most obvious biological differences between men and women.

In many, many, many cases the physical strength of the attacker has everything to do with the fact that they are forcing themselves onto another person.

Yes: there are frequently other aspects, such as the victim being drunk or incapacitated, or emotional abuse (which is often linked with the threat of physical violence). But the disparity of size and strength is one of the most obvious and incontrovertible factors in rape and assault. In so many cases, women are either a) physically incapable of fighting off their attacker, due to this disparity, or b) scared to physically resist too much, in case they are seriously hurt or killed.

This is not about gender identity. All the women who've been raped or assaulted could not have identified out of their role as female/rape victim. This is about the material, statistically-proven and frankly fucking obvious fact of male/female difference, which you have decided to ignore because it doesn't fit your agenda.

Do you agree that men are, as a biological class, physically larger and stronger than women?