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)

And it will mean nothing in law if biology is uncoupled from legal sex.

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.

Just to clarify - I brought up desegregation specifically because another poster said that no other civil rights movement had ever sought access to the existing spaces of a particular group, and that they had only ever sought spaces of their own. I was pointing out that this is not the case, and that desegregation was all about specifically dismantling 'black only' and 'white only' spaces, and allowing black people access to spaces (and rights and opportunities etc) that had previously been reserved for white people.

I didn't say that people who think men can't be women are the same as people who thought that black and white people should be separate. I just wanted to clarify that civil rights movements are always about giving a group access to a space held by another group. That might be a physical space or it might be political, cultural, social or economic space.

I don't think there is an exact parallel between desegregation and the GRA - I understand that the situations are different. But I think there are some comparisons we can draw (like how I think it's easy to fear a perceived threat which isn't supported by evidence and let that fear lead to unjust policies). But I mainly wanted to challenge the revisionist history of civil rights movements which was put forward earlier.

There are some interesting posting histories on this thread, which I note was started on the last day of the GRA consultation.

Self ID will mean that any man can become a woman legally just by saying so. In practice this will make all women only spaces unisex. How will women assert sex based protections if any man can call himself a woman?

Anyone who wants to say no to Self ID can do so with one click on the Fair Play for Women site: fairplayforwomen.com/say_no/. But please do it today, before 11pm.

The tiny group (less than 5,000) of genuine transsexuals with severe gender dysphoria have little trouble getting a GRC. The process was written with them in mind.

And no, it's not costly. It costs £140, less than a TV licence.

But there are now hundreds of thousands of men who identify as women but have no dysphoria. Many have AGP or various other sexual motivations and 90% of them keep their penis. They find it hard to obtain a GRC for obvious reasons. Hence the heavy push by TRAs for Self ID. No gatekeeping, no safeguards.

As for FPFW having sinister backers, it seems genderists haven't registered that these days we women have our very own money with which to support the causes of our choice. Novel, I realize.

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

Yes, I do.

Do you believe men commit rape because of a biological urge they have no control over? Because that's the point I was actually making.

And it's not me who is throwing women under the bus. Talk about showing true colours!! We've come a long way in our understanding of how and why rapes happen, and you want to take ten steps back because it supports your position on trans women??

Women should not be made to feel that rapes occur because women aren't strong enough to fight off their attackers. How do you think that belief would make a rape victim feel if she was one of the many who didn't fight back because she had frozen, or because she was asleep, or because she panicked, or because she was drunk, or because she'd been coerced by a boyfriend who said it's what all girls do, or because she was financially dependent on her attacker, or because she was drugged?

Rape is rape regardless of how strong or powerful the rapist is, and we've come a long way to the point where we now understand that, and don't insist on viewing rapes as somehow being more legitimate because they include a physically overpowered victim.

You can be gender-critical and have concerns about self-ID and not support the GRA without needing to make false and incredibly damaging statements about rape. So please don't.

I'd be interested in getting some views on the rape crisis centers which have supported the GRA.

Do you find this allays some of your fears?

If not, why not?

I found it very reassuring but it's clear not everyone does and I'd be interested to know why.

I mostly found it reassuring to hear that the organisations I mentioned earlier are already supporting trans women who haven't had to provide proof of their genders, and that they don't think the GRA will change things. Is this just naive? Are they turning a blind eye to a threat that would only emerge if they law changed?

Every cell of a transwoman's body is male. Every cell of a transman's body is female. How is this any less to do with biology than race.
In Scotland, the following organisations all support the GRA well there's an easy reason for that, they'd all quite like some government funding and they won't get it if they don't support the government's viewpoint. I live here and I know. Also in Scotland 100% of rapes are committed by men. Rape involves a penis. So I can easily suggest a way to reduce danger to women - no penises in intimate settings unless you've asked for them to be there.

Women cannot fight against the discrimination that comes about from their biology if biology is uncoupled from legal sex.

Self ID uncouples biology from legal sex.

Self ID erases women as a biological class.

Fair Play for women asked women who run and use domestic violence services how the loss of single sex services will affect them.

fairplayforwomen.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/FPFW_report_19SEPT2018.pdf

Women only services are concerned about having their resources tied up by vexatious litigation, due to the 'case by case' clause that allows men who identify as women (such as rapist Karen White or murderer William Jaggs) to use them.

Every cell of a transwoman's body is male. Every cell of a transman's body is female. How is this any less to do with biology than race.

It's specifically about inherited genetics. You don't inherit your gender from your parents. All people (save for intersex people) get male genes or female genes. It's not like you're male or female because your parents are male or female. It's because all humans (again save a minority) are either male or female, and it's just chance which genes you get.

Race isn't like that. Your race is controlled by a variety of genetic factors which you DO inherit from your parents, and which are totally specific to your genetic inheritance.

Women cannot fight against the discrimination that comes about from their biology if biology is uncoupled from legal sex.

Why not? What about allowing trans women to identify as women prevents women from fighting discrimination which comes from biological events like pregnancy? I'm genuinely not being obtuse but I don't see the link.

And trans women can already have their gender legally recognised. I don't see how making that process easier is going to affect fighting discrimination?

I am all ears for valid concerns about the impact of self-ID on women but I am just not able to see how it relates to this?

I don't find it remotely reassuring, no, to look further and further into this and realise just how far the encroachment of males into supposedly female-only areas has been allowed and encouraged.

I would be very interested to know how many people and organizations would NOT be toeing the line and repeating the mantras if they knew it was safe to do so - that is, it wouldn't affect their jobs, families and funding.

You don't inherit your gender from your parents.

Er, you do know how sex works, right? The female provides an X chromosome, the male provides an X or a Y and that's how sex is determined.

BTW, as a BRCA carrier I definitely have inherited something from my mother and grandmother that affects me BECAUSE I am female. I can't self-identify my way out of that, no matter how much I'd like to.

Sex exists. It's not "gender." Gender is stereotypes that, for some reason, you think should be more important in law than sex.

Why not? What about allowing trans women to identify as women prevents women from fighting discrimination which comes from biological events like pregnancy?

Because it removes meaning from the word for the group of people who give birth and are discriminated against because of it. The word woman becomes meaningless if it has nothing to do with biology.

We may as well just get rid of the words woman and man and just call everyone people if they have no link to biology.

It's like Helmet hasn't seen all the demands to stop talking about menstruation, cervical cancer, abortion, pregnancy, and FGM as "women's issues" because they're too "cissexist."

we women have our very own money with which to support the causes of our choice.

Your own money! Did you save a shilling each week from your housekeeping allowance? Or did you sell your hair to the wigmaker?

Women are, as a class, physically smaller and weaker than men.
We may get pregnant.
We may give birth.
We may be the primary carer of infants if breastfeeding.

It's not just a weird coincidence that, historically and globally, women have been treated like shit - everything ranging from being considered nice-but-not-quite-as-good-as-men to actual non-citizens and/or property. It's as a direct result of the marked biological difference between the sexes, which ensures that women (as a class) are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation.

Human beings aren't just a series of interchangable figures, some with a penis stuck on and some with a vagina. I'm so sick of hearing transactivists trying to minimize sex-based differences to this, as if the physical difference between the sexes is this tiny trifling detail we're fixating on. We have eyes! We live in the world and can see the difference between men and women! How can we be debating this?

Stop trying to gaslight women. It's so obvious. Violence is not a purely social construct: it's not just feeling entitled to rape or assault someone, but also about being physically able to. Male violence against women isn't just some random bad habit the entire world has fallen into for a few millennia. Physical inequality and physical difference is at the basis of all the shite women have been through. We didn't identify into it.

Er, you do know how sex works, right? The female provides an X chromosome, the male provides an X or a Y and that's how sex is determined.

Ok, but you must also see that you aren't a woman because your mother is a woman, or male because your father is male? You don't inherit the genes for male or female because you have male and female parents. You inherit those genes because all humans do.

That is very obviously different from racial genes, which you inherit from your parents because your parents have those genes. All humans will inherit sex genes, but you only inherit your racial genes because your parents have them.

It's really obvious how those two things are different, right?

Any baby will be either male or female, and that has nothing to do with their parents' sexes. But a baby born to a white couple can't be born with Japanese genes, because it inherits its genes from its parents.

Does that make sense?

Stop trying to gaslight women

Disagreement is not gaslighting. I'm not trying to convince you you're mad. I'm not psychologically manipulating you into doubting your memory, perception or sanity. I am explaining my own feelings and defending my point of view.

You are not the victim of psychological abuse just because I don't agree with you.

It's like Helmet hasn't seen all the demands to stop talking about menstruation, cervical cancer, abortion, pregnancy, and FGM as "women's issues" because they're too "cissexist."?

I genuinely haven't seen this.

We may as well just get rid of the words woman and man and just call everyone people if they have no link to biology.

I think this is a bit of an exaggerated scenario and clearly not something that's actually going to happen - but even if it did, why would it stop us from saying 'maternity discrimination shouldn't exist'?

You ignored the point about BRCA, didn't you Helmet?

Figures.

I think this is a bit of an exaggerated scenario and clearly not something that's actually going to happen - but even if it did, why would it stop us from saying 'maternity discrimination shouldn't exist'?

Because it's not just maternity discrimination, it's a pay gap, period poverty, women's health issues being taken less seriously, babies being killed at birth, people being denied an education, dying in menstruation huts etc, etc.

They all happen because of biology. Female biology. Women's biology.

Because it's not just maternity discrimination, it's a pay gap, period poverty, women's health issues being taken less seriously, babies being killed at birth, people being denied an education, dying in menstruation huts etc, etc. They all happen because of biology. Female biology. Women's biology.

But you won't answer the question!!! How does making it easier for trans women to get a GRC prevent us from campaigning on these issues? I cannot see a link, and you don't seem to be able to provide one?

Trans women have been able to identify as women and have their gender legally recognised for years and it hasn't caused these campaigns to stall. Why do you now think that will change?

...and don't insist on viewing rapes as somehow being more legitimate because they include a physically overpowered victim.

That is the most shameless strawman I've seen in a while.

Rape is very frequently facilitated by the attacker being physically stronger than the victim. This gives the attacker confidence to attack, with little fear of being injured himself. It ensures that the victim is either unable to physically fight him off, or is so fearful of further more extreme violence that she does not fight.

Rape, on social terms, is the manifestation of one biological class feeling entitled to dominance, with contempt or zero empathy for the dominated class.

Neither class was assigned to be dominant or dominated at random. Physical disparity is what placed them there.

I have never said rape through sheer physical overpowering are more 'legitimate', or even anything close. But I think you know that.

You are denying the physical aspect of rape because it fits your agenda, which is that women have no real justification for fearing male-bodied people in their spaces if those male-bodied people claim a female identification, because it's male socialisation which facilitates rape - and that male bodies have nothing to do with it.

I've never seen someone slip so quickly and totally from the faux naive 'oh gosh, I just don't know what to think' to blatant, offensive propaganda-pushing. I hope you've spurred a few more people to fill out the GRA consultation.

Self ID is a different kettle of fish. It enables the likes of Karen White and William Jaggs to be considered women. It enables abusive men to be legally considered women.

Okay, I'm starting to realise what the issue is here.

Helmet, you haven't been paying attention to what Trans Rights Activists actually want, have you?

You think this is just about being polite, saying "gender" instead of sex because "gender" is nicer to say in mixed company, and treating everyone like they are worthwhile humans.

You've missed the entire campaign to:

• make sex irrelevant and internal feelings about performing gender stereotypes the only thing protected in law
• erase language that links "woman" to any biological feature of being female
• dismiss all data about rates of male-on-female violence
• conflate body gender dysphoria with sexual fetishes AND just garden variety "not being a 1950s stereotype"
• make "lesbianism" into something that means "be attracting to someone who identifies as a woman, not someone with a female body"
• the endless online harassment and doxxing of many women (gay and straight) who have tried to raise concerns about the trans-driven changes to children's safeguarding

No wonder you think women are being unreasonable. You have literally missed the entire damned conversation.