MP's will debate changing the Gender Recognition Act

[Witheringtong]

On Monday 21 February, MP's will debate reforming the Gender Recognition Act.
committees.parliament.uk/committee/326/petitions-committee/news/160946/reform-of-the-gender-recognition-act-to-be-debated-by-mps/

Where do you stand? Since there are only 2 voting options the vote can't reflect all the possible options so you might have to add a comment.
Personally, I dont see how safeguarding or sex based rights can be upheld as long as people can change their legal sex marker. I'm also opposed to convicted sex offenders or violent offenders being able to change their legal details, let alone be places in a women's prison.

AIBU - The GRA should be changed to make it easier for any person to change their legal sex markers, name and birth certificate.

YANBU - The GRA should not be changed.

Trans people aren’t pretending to be trans „for a day“ either.

No one has said they aren’t trans. What we are saying is that being trans does not make you the opposite sex. The analogy with gay people does not work here at all.

Yes exactly. I have no issue actually with someone self identifying as trans. My issue is with people identifying as a member of the opposite sex.

@brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
''So would you also be against people self identifying as gay, sexual orientation also being a protected characteristic?''

Lesbians are no longer welcome at Pride for being same sex attracted. IDK why you brought up gay people, they are also affected by self ID.

Should white people identify as black, or able bodied people identify as disabled? I dont think so. Its insulting, even if the person who does it hasn't taken up resources they arent entitled to.

Woman encounters large man in ladies loos. Woman is scared. Woman phones security or police. They can't do anything because he self-id's as a woman and the woman is just being transphobic. Already happening around the world. YANBU.

Would any of you be comfortable with your 12 year old daughter in a changing room showering with a naked full bodied adult male?

Didn't think so!!

I am OK with changes to the current process, but anything should retain protection for women's only spaces, where the person who has or wishes to change from being male to female has not undergone reassignment surgery.

@SunniDelite

Woman encounters large man in ladies loos. Woman is scared. Woman phones security or police. They can't do anything because he self-id's as a woman and the woman is just being transphobic. Already happening around the world. YANBU.

Woman encounters large bearded man in ladies loos, Woman is scared, Woman phones security or police, They cant do anything because he is a FTM and the woman is just being transphobic.

Always about the toilets and always about MTF, who checks peoples underwear when they go in now? Never been asked what I have in my underwear to be granted access to any toilets

@Georgeskitchen

Would any of you be comfortable with your 12 year old daughter in a changing room showering with a naked full bodied adult male?

Didn't think so!!

Wont you think of the children, right wing moral panic script point by point

If they want to replace the current definitions of 'woman' and 'man' then at the very least they should clarify precisely what the 'new' definitions are proposed to be.

I've been asking for several years what the proposed definitions are and no-one can say (or wants to say).

There is an underlying, unexamined assumption in a worryingly large number of people that being female = being feminine (and male/masculine) that is utterly false and people need to concentrate on not conflating these.

Wont you think of the children, right wing moral panic script point by point

Yawn. Characterising mothers as right-wing pearl clutchers, misogyny, point by point.

@balalake

I am OK with changes to the current process, but anything should retain protection for women's only spaces, where the person who has or wishes to change from being male to female has not undergone reassignment surgery.

I see where you're coming from but I think it's unethical to require that some people undergo major surgery' as a requirement to access spaces. It won't be medically suitable for all people. Therefore it should simply be split by 'male' and 'female' and everyone should accept that this will include people with a huge variety of inner feelings and appearance/dress.

Medical forms definitely need genetic sex and chosen sex.

Wonder how long before this gets reported by the monitors & gets shunted off to the naughty corner

The GRA is bad law for many reasons and should be repealed but as it won’t be, no I don’t think men should be able to self ID as a woman because women are adult human females and men however they present & even if they have surgery (must don’t) can’t ever be that. They were born male & male they stay

Might get my bingo card ready for the actual debate - will be interesting to see who actually turns up.
Bet you anything there is inconsistent conflating of "sex" and "gender".
"Gender" and "gender identity" won't be defined in a non-circular way.
Ignorance of the fact that female people across the world and throughout history are the victims of violence and sexual violence because of their sex and not what sort of things they like/their character/their dress sense.

@bishophaha

Therefore it should simply be split by 'male' and 'female' and everyone should accept that this will include people with a huge variety of inner feelings and appearance/dress.

Why should women just accept that they can't have spaces or services just for them? Why should they just accept that anyone can say what they want to access these services or spaces?
It's a step backwards.

I voted YABU.

I've said this before but either a person can change their gender or they can't. If our society says it's possible to change gender from that assigned at birth then that should be the end of the matter - people should be free to choose their gender and access resources that they would otherwise be barred from, whether it's changing rooms, prisons or elite sport.

The risk to women is a separate issue. It's already illegal to harass or intimidate people, it's already illegal to sexually assault or abuse people. What needs tightening up is the prevention and punishment aspect. Making things difficult for (and by extension discriminating against) "genuine" transgender people is the wrong way to go about it. We don't ban muslims from going to busy places because a few will do so to kill people, we spend a fortune on identifying, tracking and preventing those few problem cases. Likewise, rather than banning transgender women (because it's only transgender women that seem to be feared) from services designed for women, we should prevent the few who will abuse their access from doing so.

Of course, if society decided it was not possible to change gender then the whole question would become irrelevant. Personally I tend to favour this route, I think it's possible to feel you're of the "wrong" gender, but that doesn't automatically mean you're able to change it. (That's just my view - society has decided otherwise, and perhaps with evidence I will change it.)

Gender shouldn't be a legal issue. Laws should be based on sex and biological reality, not some made up sense of gender based on social stereotypes.

Gender identity isn’t the same thing as being gay. Gay people weren’t asking for special rights which impinged on other peoples rights, they were asking to be left alone. The comparison doesn’t work, some trans people are asking for rights which would allow them to impinge on the rights of women and girls to single sex spaces. They already have all the rights their sex entitles them to.

loos yup, but also rape crisis centres, prisons, hospital wards, being able to choose the sex of your hcp or perhaps your elderly mum needs care which includes intimate care and she would feel her dignity is undermined by being cared for by someone she sees as male, womens only shortlists etc etc there is also evidence that you are more likely to be assaulted in mixed sex spaces. Thats not moral panic.

From The Times

Unisex changing rooms are more dangerous for women and girls than single-sex facilities, research by The Sunday Times shows. Almost 90% of reported sexual assaults, harassment and voyeurism in swimming pool and sports-centre changing rooms happen in unisex facilities, which make up less than half the total.

Gender-neutral changing is growing as councils seek to cut staff costs and cater to transgender people. But one MP said it risked becoming a “magnet” for sex offenders and increased the danger to women and girls.

Also no I don’t want to share my spaces with biological males, why should I? I’m not a support human.

It’s narcissism, you see this in womens sport. Trans women who compete against women know they are doing so unfairly they know they have an advantage and all I can think only a complete narcissist would struggle to understand this isn’t appropriate.

I don’t care if people identify as trans or ask me to use particular pronouns, I’m happy to oblige (I may eye roll at the more ridiculous examples, but y’know you do you as long as you aren’t being a pain in the ass”)and genuinely believe people should be free to express themselves how they choose without fear (barring the MAP lot, they are just grim). I care about the rights of women. I’m not obliged to put biological males above women in respect to safeguarding and fairness.

[quote ohhooh]@bishophaha

Therefore it should simply be split by 'male' and 'female' and everyone should accept that this will include people with a huge variety of inner feelings and appearance/dress.

Why should women just accept that they can't have spaces or services just for them? Why should they just accept that anyone can say what they want to access these services or spaces?
It's a step backwards. [/quote]
Not sure if you're using a different definition of women from me.

Female spaces should have female people in them, however masculine they feel/look/dress, whether they have had a mastectomy or hysterectomy or not, whether they love shopping and makeup or not, whether they think they have a gender or not.

It's far easier to split by natal sex than to try and fiddle around 'but this person can go in the opposite space if they've had THIS surgery, but not that surgery' etc.

And obviously all decent people would be happy to stick with this as natal sex isn't a judgment about anything about you.

And obviously this is only where there is a need for single-sex spaces for the purposes of dignity and safety, etc, not in general life (eg I'm not proposing separate pavements for men/women).

If our society says it's possible to change gender from that assigned at birth

Genders aren't assigned at birth, though.
Please don't conflate sex and gender - it's not helpful to any discussion!

People often say that certain sexes 'match' certain genders but won't say how or why. So this is another thing that needs to be clearly set out in any debate about sex and gender.

Making things difficult for (and by extension discriminating against) "genuine" transgender people is the wrong way to go about it.

Also, there is no concept in law (or in gender speak) of 'genuine' or not genuine transgender people.
To say you are transgender is to BE transgender.

@Auntieobem

Gender shouldn't be a legal issue. Laws should be based on sex and biological reality, not some made up sense of gender based on social stereotypes.

Agree with this.

And also with Antsgomarching's post immediately afterwards. Gender is nothing to do with either biological sex or sexuality.

On the prison issue, what do we do with female prisoners who sexually assault women? Or men who sexually assault men? Do we put homosexual sex offenders in different prisons because there is a threat?

I completely understand the instinct that the idea of transwomen entering female spaces feels like a threat. I haven't really resolved how I feel about it. I wonder if I'm biased and I need to explore further about what I really feel, educate myself and then reconsider.

It’s hard AF being trans, why make it harder?

Way, way too simplistic, and however unhappy and hard things are for male people, the answer cannot ever be to sacrifice females and their rights, access and equality as some kind of consolation prize. That is a batshit, wholly unacceptable reason to do the harm that females have and are suffering.

This was a truly stupid piece of legislation, it has messed with safeguarding, record keeping, female access and equality, harm to females and to children, messed with the impartiality of police and justice, been exploited for appalling political capture and bias, it has exposed really ugly levels of misogyny in the UK and created a precedent that reality can be a matter of choice instead of objective fact if you come from a powerful, male led group. It was created for very bad reasons, it's original purpose is gone, it has been repurposed, and it needs repealing.

I haven't really resolved how I feel about it. I wonder if I'm biased and I need to explore further about what I really feel, educate myself and then reconsider.

It is a hard thing to come to a conclusion about - wherever you draw the line you feel you are 'excluding' someone.

I guess think about a) what your definition of 'transwoman' is and
b) what situations you would feel comfortable allowing a male person into a female prison, and then how far away from e.g. Stonewall's objectives this is (unless the situation is 'if the male person simply declares they are a woman' in which case, you're with Stonewall!) and how this could work, whether the line could be argued, whether the line is a fair and ethical 'requirement'.

There's an interesting discussion here
hollylawford-smith.org/hitching-glitterbeard-carts-to-transsexual-wagons/