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 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?

Because numbers were extremely limited. Self ID means that ANYONE can be a woman which means the word woman would be no longer linked to biology.

It would be really easy to tell very quickly if someone wasn't living as their acquired gender and was just trying to take advantage of the possibility of accessing women-only spaces.

I disagree. What does 'living as their acquired gender' mean?

I rarely wear a skirt, have a motorbike licence, I'm qualified to teach computer science and struggle to work the washing machine.

That doesn't make me a man.

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

Because while I'm sorry that the poster carries this mutation and absolutely appreciate the implications it will have for her personally, I don't really understand the point she was making. I can see why the poster would feel that this biological reality is very significant to her and her identity, and I don't challenge that. I can see why she might find it insulting to see a trans woman wanting to 'self-ID' into being a woman when the poster is experiencing an unwelcome part of her female biology that she doesn't think a trans woman could experience.

But for one thing my understanding is that both men and women can be carriers of the mutation and increases cancer risks in both (although I totally accept that the increased risk is greater for women than for men).

For another, I don't really understand what this has to do with self-ID? What point is being made here? Being trans isn't about somehow magically self-IDing out of your biology and all the implications that has. It's about acknowledging that your gender doesn't have to be connected to your sex.

A trans man could be a BRCA carrier. They would still be at an increased risk of breast and ovarian cancers. But that wouldn't prevent them from identifying as male and being legally recognised as such.

I am very sympathetic to the view that because trans women don't experience the biological reality that women whose gender corresponds with their sex do, they can't actually have the experience of being a woman. I do get that periods and childbirth and breast cancer etc are seen as uniquely female experiences and not something you can self-ID into. But I think that holding this view ignores the many ways in which trans women face the same kinds of oppression as women whose sex and gender correspond. And I think we should acknowledge that many women, trans and otherwise, will never experience those things. They aren't the measures of being a woman.

Being trans isn't about somehow magically self-IDing out of your biology and all the implications that has. It's about acknowledging that your gender doesn't have to be connected to your sex.

No, of course gender isn't connected to sex which is why it's ridiculous that someone can legally change their sex if they fell they have a different gender. Gender and sex are not the same thing.

*- 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*

Harassment and doxxing are always unacceptable but you're presumably also aware of just how frequently trans people are the victims of this?

I genuinely can't find sources for the things you've posted. Maybe if the conversation isn't on the front page of google it's not that unreasonable that I've missed it?

(I'm also aware that some items on that list are deliberate mischaracterisations which aren't reflective of reality. I may have missed your conversation, but that isn't 'the' conversation)

No, of course gender isn't connected to sex which is why it's ridiculous that someone can legally change their sex if they fell they have a different gender. Gender and sex are not the same thing.

I think you're confused. You can obtain legal recognition of your acquired gender, and have your ID documents amended to reflect that gender. You can't legally change your sex, because sex isn't something you can change.

They aren't the measures of being a woman.

So what is, in your view? What's the definition of 'woman'.

If anyone has decided whilst reading this particular thread, that letting men in women's space is a bad idea...don't forget to complete the consultation....tonight before 11pm
Www.fairplayforwomen/email

Do you define "women" as people who just really like shoes, Helmet?

I do get that periods and childbirth and breast cancer etc are seen as uniquely female experiences and not something you can self-ID into. But I think that holding this view ignores the many ways in which trans women face the same kinds of oppression as women whose sex and gender correspond.

Males and females face the same kind of oppression in many situations e.g. in deprived areas. It doesn't make them the same sex.

Www.fairplayforwomen.com/email

(Let's settle in to see how many stereotypes Helmet is going to name as defining "woman" more than having a female body. Bingo cards at the ready!)

You can obtain legal recognition of your acquired gender, and have your ID documents amended to reflect that gender.

This is precisely the nonsensical bollocks that is driving me insane!

Gender is a social construct!!! How can you legally be a social construct? How can you aquire a stereopype?? FFS.

However your next sentence is the one that matters : You can't legally change your sex, because sex isn't something you can change.

Exactly!! Sex is real. Gender isn't.

You can't legally change your sex, because sex isn't something you can change.

Errrr, that's the whole point of the GRA. To be legally recognised as the opposite sex.

HelmetHair1 you speak of the many ways in which trans women face the same kinds of oppression as women whose sex and gender correspond.

What are these ways? Because I can't think of any.

Oh, and please stop assuming that women's sex and gender correspond. Gender is one of the principal tools of patriarchy, which is why feminism fights gender and has done since the birth of the Second Wave. Gender pushes harmful stereotypes, which is why the narrative of every trans child rattles on about boys who love princesses or girls who love tractors.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/9

Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).

YY to MrBAW @ 17:45.
Who was it that pushed the GRA through in the first place. Who is the politician who was responsible for it.

I think the definition of the word woman is different to the measure of being a woman.

Definitions are just rules about what words refer to which we invent and amend as necessary. I don't think we currently have a really good definition of what woman means.

But in terms of how we measure what it means to be a woman - I think the only valid measure is the innate sense a person has of their own gender. Their own understanding of what their identity is. If your identity is woman - if that is who you know yourself to be - it's who you are.

If scientists could invent a procedure that put you - your sense of self and everything that makes you who you are - into a biologically male body, it wouldn't make you a man. It would make you a woman in a biologically male body. That is the best way I can understand it myself.

Try pushing a baby out of your penis then report back.

If scientists could invent a procedure that put you - your sense of self and everything that makes you who you are - into a biologically male body, it wouldn't make you a man.

Yes it would.

Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).

No - sex can't and doesn't change. Your sex doesn't become male because your gender is man. They are two different things.

It comes to something when society cares more about defining cheese and Jaffa cakes than half the population.

Try pushing a baby out of your penis then report back.

What a meaningless comment. I can't even guess what your point is.

Yes it would.

Do you really believe that? Do you really think that your identity would instantly change and you would right away feel like a man and know yourself to be a man? I cannot even begin to fathom feeling that way.

Maybe you're actually gender fluid and that's why you can

I have to go to work now, so I won't be able to respond any more tonight. Hope everyone has a good evening / weekend.

No - sex can't and doesn't change. Your sex doesn't become male because your gender is man. They are two different things.

I agree, sex can't and doesn't change biologically. The whole point of a GRC is to change sex legally.

You said You can't legally change your sex. Yes, you can. And the consultation about the GRA is about making it so that literally anyone can do that very, very easily.