to think this is sexism, when no-one asked women, yet women are negatively affected?

[TruthOnTrial]

I am trying to understand how rules in schools, gyms, public toilets and sports have been rewritten, negatively affecting women, without reference to women?

Does it even matter what women think? Does society not care?

Or am I just being incredibly naïve to expect to be asked about things that impact my life and possible risk for me and my DC?

There is also a duty to ask those whose lives you will actively put at risk, when it will fly in the face of safeguarding and the EA

It's bizarre that the opinions of those affected directly in terms of risk were not sought.

It's bizarre that the opinions of those affected directly in terms of risk were not sought.

Short of knocking on the doors of 30m or so homes to directly ask people's opinions, most they can do is announce forthcoming bills or proposed bills, then wait for anyone who wants to say something to come forward.

It might just be more a question of practicality than anything else.

I'm a woman and don't feel negatively affected by it. Speak for yourself, your views don't represent all women

I'm glad you don't feel negatively affected Tickle. Hopefully when changes to the GRA are considered they will take into account how other women and girls, who may be vulnerable, could be impacted.

@TruthOnTrial - Caser is not Transgender - she is intersex

*Caster Semenya

This is war on women, plain and simple

I know Opinion I already said, and answered that

short of knocking....on doors. Are you taking this seriously . I think not, from that.

OP has this sneaked over from the feminist board?

Sneaked over?

We could just about ditch Aibu if people posted on the relevant board.

Are women only allowed post these questions on the feminism board now then? I thought all women were interested in protecting the hard won rights of women - silly me.

Redpostbox

Please explain your beef?

I think there's a lot of ignorance and confusion mixed in with genuine concerns which is why I think more dialogue is a good thing.

For example, using Caster Senenya as an example of transgender representation in sport is ignorant and inaccurate.

Many of the concerns I read about a transgender person, for example using the same changing rooms as their assumed sex are applicable today without any change to the GRA. These are pre-existing rights as supported by the EA.

The change in policies that have thus far been formally presented have still outlined a formal process for self identification, including a minimum period for having lived as that gender and in addition an enforced reflection period after that point.

More studies and reviews of the countries that have Self ID would also be useful to outline how such a policy works in practice.

Just to be clear, I filled out my consultation because I support changes to the current process but want to be part of the conversation in terms of how this is enacted and how we protect and promote both trans and non-trans groups. I'll take part in the next public consultation for the same reasons.

Not this shite again!

But that isn't true - there is no evidence to suggest that transwomen have any different offense profile to any other male, which is significantly higher than a female's

But this specifically relates to someone who has a gender recognition certificate and who is "visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable from someone of their preferred gender* which is a rather different demographic. The reality is that there are already many people fitting that description using women's changing rooms (and vice versa), and have been for decades, but people simply won't be aware of it. Would anyone serious challenge Jan Morris, for instance, if they saw her go into a woman's changing room?

If I am in a state of undress behind a curtain with other women and young girls, and a predatory man decides to gain access without my knowledge, we are potentially at risk

Well, yes, obviously. But you are assuming that a predatory man is going to go to all the trouble of getting a gender recognition certificate, which includes having to prove to an independent panel that he's been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, he's lived in the acquired gender for at least 2 years, and he intends to live in the acquired gender for the rest of his life. Seriously?

If a predatory man really wants access to women, there are so many much easier ways of gaining it.

Are you really suggesting judging trans women for the quality of their appearance as a female? Do you actually think that when a more unsuccessfully female transed person access a female only space, some magical imposition of "authority" will come down from on high to prevent their use of these facilities?

I'm referring to the criteria quoted in the message I was responding to, which specifically related to transpeople who are indistinguishable from others of their chosen sex and who have gender recognition certificates. Please don't try to twist what I'm saying to suit your own agenda.

As for the issue of the magical imposition of "authority", we come back to the fact that, if predatory men want to access changing rooms, the reality is that they can do so relatively easily without going through all the trouble of getting a GRC. We need to focus attention more on security generally in women's spaces, because the suggestion that risk only comes from transwomen or people posing as transwomen ignores reality.

But you are assuming that a predatory man is going to go to all the trouble don't underestimate predatory men. THey go enormous lengths to access their victims. They train as doctors or teachers, enter priesthood - do you think filling out a form and wearing a frock will put them off?

Isatis I don't know about all that

I was simply referring to cases where it has happened.

Where peodolhiles for instance do go to the trouble of getting themselves into situations through extensive deception to gain access to their targets.

This has happened, to women having men access women only spaces where they could be vulnerable.

This has and does happen, because it happens without any GRC, without any change of clothes, or attempts to be like a woman. Without any medical plasty work to change the look of genitals etc.

The point was about giving women a voice in something that potentially, or actually has increased their risk, and that of DC. The contraventions of the EA and the overriding of standard safeguarding that results.

Notention the conflation of women's crime start with men's.

These are all outcomes of not asking women who currently work with groups of women, children and vulnerable women to assess very real risks.

*Not to mention

*Not to mention the conflation of women's crime stats with mens

do you think filling out a form and wearing a frock will put them off?

Getting a GRC involves a hell of a lot more than that.

What about transpeople who are indistinguisahable from others of their chosen sex who do not have gender recognition certificates? Or vice versa?

What about them? As I have already pointed out once, I was responding very specifically to a question about a specific set of criteria which related to those who do have GRCs. Once again you appear to be trying to twist my words, on this occasion apparently purely so that you can launch into a somewhat vicious and aggressive personal attack which doesn't merit any further response.

"The OP is whether it's reasonable for decisions to be made on women without their consultation."

Like in N.I, where a bunch of old male wasps have been blocking access to abortion for decades, for "religious reasons"? Yanbu.