AIBU to think Maya scored a victory for common sense today?

[DancesWithTortoises]

twitter.com/MForstater/status/1402922169559044096?s=20

news.sky.com/story/maya-forstater-woman-who-lost-job-over-transgender-views-wins-appeal-against-employment-tribunal-12329249

The law just cannot be allowed to tell people what to think.

Hurrah for Maya!

*Blue, I’d like to remind you that the rights you are legally claiming come from the Equality Act 2010…which also provides for single sex exceptions.

The single sex exemptions have been ignored or minimized by people in recent years.

Women are now mobilizing themselves to prevent that from happening and to enforce the exemptions that are legally permitted.

That is not contravening your rights that come from the EA. It is preserving the rights women already had and were specifically protected by the EA.*

No issue with that. However these exception are narrow and I get the impression some seek to apply these exemptions in every situation.

Clarification has also said that exemptions are related to the level in which someone has transitioned. In other words a different threshold applies to a pre op person self identifying that to someone who was post op.

Post op' and 'GRC' are red herrings in this debate. There are many high profile trans people who publicly don't have a GRC. Jane Fae is very upfront about the fact its not necessary.

So what does this mean for them then. As they are legally male as no GRC or intention (presumably to get one) thus have no right or access to any spaces designated for women. Thus they legally need to be treated as the sex they were born as.

I also believe that it is a reasonable request that the 4500 or so post op transsexuals with a GRC are able to share women's spaces

Not all spaces though. Depending on the circumstances. As per the law.

[quote MissChanandlerBong90]@BlueLipstickRocks

Sorry if I’m being slow/ignorant but a lot of your posts are focussed on the needs of post-op transsexuals. Don’t post-op transsexuals get a GRC and change sex in the eyes of the law? They can and do access women’s spaces, don’t they and have done for years and years. That’s the current position, as I understand it.

I’m struggling to understand why self ID or the erosion of women’s spaces are necessary to meet the needs of those men who’ve had surgery and are therefore legally recognised as women. I appreciate there may be some anomalies in respect of post-op transsexuals in for example, health screening, like you’ve pointed out - but fundamentally the current legal framework allows people who’ve had surgery to live as their acquired sex.[/quote]
There's no requirement to be post op to obtain a GRC.

Nor does being post op mean a male transsexual/transwoman suddenly becomes an automatically ok person to welcome into female spaces tbh (please note nor does it mean any particular individual, on this thread or not, is going to do anything aggressive towards women, I'm not suggesting that for a moment).

I got threatened on Twitter yesterday by someone who was very much post op, had posted the pictures to prove it, which was nice , & was very very keen to put Maya (& any other women speaking out) 'on her ass' given the opportunity.

I spent a few minutes reporting the threatening tweets - which are still up.

The 'post op' thing is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. & I get that that will upset some non-threatening, perfectly pleasant transsexuals who just want to quietly go about their day, but that cannot be my priority although I'll happily support additional unisex provision.

Women will always be safer if we have access to female only spaces. So we need to retain them, even if not all of us use them, or not all of us all of the time. They need to be there for the women who do need them.

There's no requirement to be post op to obtain a GRC.

And that is a massive problem.

Jeez I need to figure out this phone! Above reply to MissChanandlerBong & starts at 'There's no.. '.

Ffs. Sorry.

*Post op' and 'GRC' are red herrings in this debate. There are many high profile trans people who publicly don't have a GRC. Jane Fae is very upfront about the fact its not necessary.

So what does this mean for them then. As they are legally male as no GRC or intention (presumably to get one) thus have no right or access to any spaces designated for women. Thus they legally need to be treated as the sex they were born as.*

Only a GRC changes a legal sex. A post op transsexual is legally male without one.

There are a few high profile trans people who do not hold one. I can think of one in particular who claims the reason as being supportive of women but the truth is they never qualified.

I feel that any rights at all should be linked to a GRC but the Government failed in that regard. Too many people screamed about how the GRA wasn't fit for purpose. Actually in many ways it was - its just that it was written for post op transsexuals and not transgender. The Gov allowed sex on a passport to be changed without a GRC which I profoundly disagree with. Similarly a driving license is self ID (it's one digits of the number though so not easily seen).

Ultimate though the law is very clear that without a GRC your legal sex is male. In cases of sex discrimination a legal sex would be male and a person without a GRC may not claim sex discrimination as female. After GRC a legal sex changes.

*There's no requirement to be post op to obtain a GRC.

And that is a massive problem.*

It is. However the statement is slightly incorrect. There is no definitive requirement but there is an expectation. In my application I was required to prove all surgical interventions. Had I not had surgery I would have needed to provide medical evidence to prove why not.

The intention was a questionable action to prevent those with medical conditions which rules out surgery from being prevents from getting a GRC. However I personally feel that GRS should be compulsory.

blue the reason you appear to oppose self ID is so you can ring fence your own access.

That doesn't work for women. There is no earthly way you can contain this to people with a GRC.

Safeguarding of women and children is undermined by the fact that they cannot maintain sex segregated boundaries. Loopholes are obviously a complete contradiction.

Furthermore, you can't guarantee who has a GRC, you can't guarantee that people with a GRC are harmless (some are not), but the major thing you can't guarantee is that the women in those spaces wouldn't be triggered by the presence of a male, irrespective of his paperwork.

Whether this worked ten years ago when there were only a handful, or not, is now irrelevant. It's too late. And many women have said it didn't work. They had to put up or shut up. It certainly would not have worked for many women on an individual, yet completely unheard basis.

It was a bad law, that was resisted by many MPs at the time, and the only reason it passed was because of the numbers and the homophobic attitudes to gay marriage. And it was felt that the damage to women was acceptable.

It isn't.

Many women aren't doing this for themselves, individually. They're fighting for a collective of women, many of whom will have been assaulted and raped, they are fighting for children, they are fighting for sports women, and they are fighting for vulnerable prison inmates.

I'm not sure you realise, but every transwoman has a reason why it is they who should be the exception. In your case it's all the reasons why you are transsexual. For others it's for how long they have transitioned. For yet more it's if they pass.

And others are more upfront about their negative reasons.

The lack of symmetry is startling. Self-serving interest on the one hand, and altruism on the other.

I did just look at the GRA again and it is clear that the law was there to protect transsexuals. I guess the push to reform it was to ensure that all could obtain one with little effort on their part to make a meaningful transition. A two pronged attack with the likes of organisations like stonewall misrepresenting the law on one hand, whilst seeking to change it. Just like that have done by misrepresenting the equality act.

bluethe reason you appear to oppose self ID is so you can ring fence your own access.

It most certainly is not.

Hard as it may be for you to accept but I share the same concerns. You think I havent experienced misogyny, violence and sexual abuse?

The subject that is often over looked as it’s awkward and can be hurtful to discuss is passing as a women

Regardless of being post op some transsexuals will not pass off to other women as a women and there are probably some trans women (who have not had any treatment) that can pass though I think they are very very much in the minority

We know we can tell we as females have learnt from a young age to gage our own safety from males. Our shape our movements our size is different.

This is why we need a third space a unisex space and there MUST always be a space for females (born female)

Why should I or more so a young girl feel uncomfortable. Why should we as born females be in a space which we feel is all female and we feel comfortable abs safe have to feel any different. Scenario someone comes into our space who at first may appear to be female but for us something is telling us not why should we feel something is amiss we may feel on edge or uncomfortable why should we be put in this position

Those born male do not live with the constant attention females receive from a very young age we at times want to be absolutely free of the male gaze or threat of harassment/violence. Just feeling someone isn’t quite as what they present will make us once again uncomfortable

I don’t want to say excuse me I know you look like a women but I don’t feel you are please leave I don’t want to upset anyone in that way or make them feel humiliated (and I have been in this position) but yet I and other females around are left to fee uncomfortable and wary

Our rights to absolute privacy and females spaces only should surely be respected especially by those who feel they are women

It’s harsh I know but it’s the truth and once again male entitlement trumps females feelings as history has constantly reminded us

We have also been far more conditioned to accept abs we simply are no longer willing to do so too many women have suffered

It’s not in anyway dismissing the struggles that transsexuals/trans people go through. I can’t relate to that but I can empathise and recognise that a third space is needed and unisex space

I did just look at the GRA again and it is clear that the law was there to protect transsexuals. I guess the push to reform it was to ensure that all could obtain one with little effort on their part to make a meaningful transition. A two pronged attack with the likes of organisations like stonewall misrepresenting the law on one hand, whilst seeking to change it. Just like that have done by misrepresenting the equality act.

Transsexuals were a trojan horse. Stonewall and PFC sought to manipulate people to changing the law. GRC reform wasnt about the supposedly dehumanising process but to effectively introduce a new law for transgender people by stealth,

This is a time where alternatives for trans people need to be explored. So much has happened, so much damage caused, that I don't think women can ever come back from this. And the only answer I can see to that is third spaces.

Transsexuals were a trojan horse. Stonewall and PFC sought to manipulate people to changing the law. GRC reform wasnt about the supposedly dehumanising process but to effectively introduce a new law for transgender people by stealth,

Yes, the rule book they used is pretty apparent now.

@BlueLipstickRocks

bluethe reason you appear to oppose self ID is so you can ring fence your own access.

It most certainly is not.

Hard as it may be for you to accept but I share the same concerns. You think I havent experienced misogyny, violence and sexual abuse?

As you rightly point out, blue, it's not a competition. No one wants you to experience violence. But there's nothing women can do about that. It's ludicrous to imagine that women have the power to arbitrate between two cohorts of males. They don't.

It was a bad law, at the time. It's detrimental to women, it always was.

And now it's mutated almost beyond comprehension.

Protecting vulnerable males from other males is a worthy goal. It is not, if it involves detriment to women in the process.

There is no solution that would only allow a subsection of males, and would not trigger some of the women they want access to.

The only solution is a third space.

& one aspect in which I do entirely sympathise with Blue, is that transsexuals who tried to point out that they were being used as a Trojan Horse, have been absolutely treated like shit by TRAs. For years.

& after going through all the difficulties of transition & being promised - rightly or wrongly - full legal & social acceptance as a member of the opposite sex, to then find out that you're stuck with TRAs doing that, heaping abuse on you & drawing attention you most definitely don't want whilst you try to get on with quietly going about your life..

...yeah, I'd be feeling pretty damn pissed off & defensive right now. I get it.

But as PPs have said - it was always bad law, it didn't consider women's interests, it was always detrimental to women's safety & dignity, & we can't just be asked to Be Kind any longer.

That's exactly how we ended up here.

@BlueLipstickRocks

bluethe reason you appear to oppose self ID is so you can ring fence your own access.

It most certainly is not.

Hard as it may be for you to accept but I share the same concerns. You think I havent experienced misogyny, violence and sexual abuse?

You may well have experienced issues but it was not misogyny, as that only applies to biological women. Please do not culturally appropriate the issues of biological women.

The only solution is a third space.

We have a solution. It's not the best of solution but it it what it is.

Right now if some women want to campaign for changes then that is absolutely their right to do so. However it doesn't mean that until that happens the existing law can be disregarded. On the whole laws get revised. The changes of the law being changed such that support for all transsexuals is removed is unlikely. In fact the risk is that in looking to reform that GRA the result could see a situation that is much much worse.

One of the reasons self ID wasn't permitted was because of the support of transsexuals. I personally made a submission to a Parliament subcomittee over my own views. Transsexuals aren't the enemy.

You may well have experienced issues but it was not misogyny, as that only applies to biological women. Please do not culturally appropriate the issues of biological women.

Whether one is biologically female or perceived by society as female the attitudes are the same. By that argument when I had my genitals groped does that not count because it wasn't biologically female genitalia? Should the police have recorded it as a homosexual assault?

So I can't experience similar issues to women and state that fact or its cultural appropriation?

@BlueLipstickRocks

The only solution is a third space.

We have a solution. It's not the best of solution but it it what it is.

Right now if some women want to campaign for changes then that is absolutely their right to do so. However it doesn't mean that until that happens the existing law can be disregarded. On the whole laws get revised. The changes of the law being changed such that support for all transsexuals is removed is unlikely. In fact the risk is that in looking to reform that GRA the result could see a situation that is much much worse.

One of the reasons self ID wasn't permitted was because of the support of transsexuals. I personally made a submission to a Parliament subcomittee over my own views. Transsexuals aren't the enemy.

It's not disregarding current law though.

Every single single sex provider could canvass opinion from their female users, and if a significant percentage of them wanted it to be single sex, that is a legitimate aim. If they provided an extra, gender neutral toilet, that is a proportional means.

In fact the risk is that in looking to reform that GRA the result could see a situation that is much much worse.

I'm not sure it necessarily needs to be reformed. I think the gender section of the equality act needs tightening up to remove loopholes.

@BlueLipstickRocks

You may well have experienced issues but it was not misogyny, as that only applies to biological women. Please do not culturally appropriate the issues of biological women.

Whether one is biologically female or perceived by society as female the attitudes are the same. By that argument when I had my genitals groped does that not count because it wasn't biologically female genitalia? Should the police have recorded it as a homosexual assault?

So I can't experience similar issues to women and state that fact or its cultural appropriation?

Yes, I believe they should have recorded it as homosexual assault.

Yes, I believe you claiming it as misogyny is cultural appropriation.

No, I do not believe that all of society perceives you as female.

I am sorry you have experienced assaults. Many people sadly have had that unpleasant experience. E.g. gay men.

Blue, you've said a couple of times that you would prefer unisex spaces.

Women are saying we want single sex spaces, but we fully support unisex ones too - as in let's have both.

You seem to feel that that can't happen, but it's not clear to me exactly why.

They would benefit several groups of people, not just transsexuals (you raised as a concern that a space just for transsexuals, which no-one is actually proposing, would cause them to be targeted by abusive men), so there's no reason why they wouldn't receive widespread support.

I'm just not clear why you are so 'anti' the suggestion of pushing for the solution you seem to think would be ideal for your needs.

*There's no requirement to be post op to obtain a GRC.

And that is a massive problem.*
Agree. Surely if you are not post op then you have only changed your gender presentation. This is irrelevant when we are talking about SEX based rights and spaces.