To not fully understand the outrage of the gender recognition reform?

[iamop]

Leaving my views at the door on this subject....I am just hoping to gain some clarification on one main point for my own information.

Opponents of the gender reform bill claim that this will effect single sex spaces. I was appalled hearing this but I've done some reading. And it would seem (unless I'm getting this wrong) that due to the equality act 2010, a man claiming to be a female or vice versa can already use single sex spaces due to gender identity being a protected characteristic under this act. And as the equality act is a UK wide legislation implemented under labour, this has nothing to do with the Scottish gov. So am I correct in saying, that actually the gender reform bill won't actually affect single sex spaces any more so than the equality act already does?

I completely disagree with rapists etc being able to change genders and therefore force their victims and the courts to call them by a different pronoun. I think the age of 16 to be able to do this is bonkers, and I think the SNP have lost my vote moving forward.

I was just looking for some clarification to my main point above to be explained by people smarter than myself

Thanks

OP you might find these websites useful for gaining a global perspective on this new manifestation of misogyny.

www.womenarehuman.com/

reduxx.info/

Was recently at a local National Trust place and there were a group of about 4 men walking around literally dressed like this -

pbs.twimg.com/media/ESlcyNYWoAMxDFr.jpg

I thought they must be part of some entertainment, but no. When I went into the ladies they all followed me in. From overheard conversations they were just itching to be challenged so that they could claim their 'rights'. Twats. Why should we have to put up with this crap.

I do understand the concerns around this topic, but on the whole, I feel it’s overblown. Predatory men will always look for ways to attack women, and trans people are a small minority.

Predatory men will always look for ways to attack women, and trans people are a small minority

So how many additional attacks on vulnerable women are you happy with as collateral? Let's have a number.

A question then, do you lock your doors? How about your car?

If so, why do you treat the risk for woman and children so haphazardly?

Either all males carry the exact same risk to women and children for safeguarding assessment, or you (general you here) disregard safeguarding. Either safeguarding reflects the risks as assessed with accurate data, or you acknowledge that the safeguarding process is flawed.

You, personally, may feel that a small minority of males are different from the others, but that is not good safeguarding. We discovered that with other small minority groups of males.

So while you feel it is ‘overblown’, others don’t. Why would you shame others who look and see reasons for concerns?

Because you think it is transphobic to treat them like males?

Do you have any statistics that show they commit crime at anything close to female rates?

I don't understand why we can't use our genetic chromosomes if everything is getting so bloody stupid. Why not just xx and xy? There's no arguing with that. I know there can be anomalies but the minority that are born with said anomalies get to choose already.
Anyone who is xy and wants to be seen as a woman uses separate services, along with xx who wants to be seen as a man.
Sorry HRTWT someone might have already said this.

The question then becomes why make it easier for the predatory men rather than harder?

Problem: predatory men are using cameras to record women in toilets and changing rooms, violating their privacy, putting footage of them in a state of undress online, using them as porn against their will.

Solution a) make it harder for this to happen by making it clear that all male bodied people are not allowed in female spaces, enforce this policy where it is breached and provide third spaces for anyone not identifying within their sex.

Solution b) completely erode all barriers to entry to female spaces by advertising how 'inclusive' you are and allowing anyone to self identify by saying the magic words 'I identify as a woman'. Make it so no one can question a male bodied persons presence in a female space for fear of being arrested for a hate crime or publicly named as a transphobe.

We know what solution has been chosen so what messaging do we now give to our daughters, mine is 8, do I teach her to trust her instincts, to alert someone if a male is making her feel uncomfortable, is giving 'creep' vibes? Where do I tell her to go, as a teen/early 20s when out out, if a man was getting handsy or being too insistent I'd go to the ladies toilet to get away but now he's welcome in there too?

One way of attacking women is to waltz right into their spaces.

But just a minority of women and as those women are unlikely to be you, you're alright jack so who cares?

keating

there rarely is a number, is there?. Because I think subconsciously some posters actually understand the issues and understand that even one person harmed due to safeguarding loopholes is too much.

FFS - you only have to look at the stories beginning to come out about the Scottish LGBT Youth organisation and think ‘WTF were people thinking it was ever appropriate to group 13 year olds with 25 year olds!!!

The loopholes are now even more easy to take advantage of, that some posters cannot put a number on ‘how many is acceptable collateral’ shows they understand. They just don’t want to admit it.

Although, didn’t we have a poster on a thread last night say ‘there is only 20 males in female prisons in the UK’…. When just 1 has the potential to harm vulnerable women who simply cannot get away.

(I know you know this Keating)

What other safeguards do you think we should do away with?

Paedophiles will always find children to abuse so there's no point in DBS checks.

You can't eliminate deaths from traffic accidents so let's do away with seat belt laws, speed limits and drink driving laws.

Terrorists will always find a way to hurt some people so let's stop wasting time on airport security.

there rarely is a number, is there?. Because I think subconsciously some posters actually understand the issues and understand that even one person harmed due to safeguarding loopholes is too much.

Thats why I've started to ask for a number.

Because every one of us knows this will impact some unfortunate woman.

So for those who support it/think it's no big deal, then I would like to know how many is acceptable? These are real women so let's do them the courtesy of not brushing them under the carpet. You have to look them in the eye and say, we knew this would happen and we were fine with it. 🤷‍♀️

This is slightly left of topic but it's something I read/hear so much in this discussion and it is creating full on rage response in me now so gonna get it out here.

"Predatory men aren't going to bother getting a GRC why would they, if they're gonna abuse women they'll just do it without the GRC".

If that were the case then we wouldn't have all those predatory men who go through years of schooling and create entire false personalities to become priests, doctors, nurses, scout leaders, physios, teachers......

They do what is needed to give themselves an air of respectability and to gain access. What Scotland have done is said, hey don't bother wasting all that time and effort, just fill out this form and you can become a woman just like magic, no one will be able to question your presence, and hey if you get caught raping one of them we'll lock you up with a load more vulnerable women so you can have your fill even while in prison. Whoop whoop!

It's astounding isn't it -

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/12/23/lgbt-charity-refers-police-sexual-exploitation-fears/

If that were the case then we wouldn't have all those predatory men who go through years of schooling and create entire false personalities to become priests, doctors, nurses, scout leaders, physios, teachers

And part of the reason for that is that it's all about power and control. It's not just about opportunity, feeling legitimised is a really important aspect of it all. So the Scottish Gov have just handed predators that legitimisation. Nice one lads 🙄

Because every one of us knows this will impact some unfortunate woman.

Of course people know but their belief it will never happen to them allows them to display their "be kind" credentials without worry. Often it's incredibly privileged women who think they will never need rape crisis, a domestic abuse shelter or end up in prison.

I'm sure all the law abiding post masters/mistresses who were wrongly convicted of theft and sent to prison due to an IT glitch never thought they'd see the inside of a prison cell either.

Come to work with me. See what gender ideology did to our funding for 4 or 5 years. As a rape crisis centre we chose to remain single sex. And lost our lottery funding specifically for not being diverse enough - baldly stated that we did not include men in any part of our organisation. We had to make a permanent arrangement, sending money to a shelter for men, in order to meet the unwritten criteria and get some funding reinstated.

The men's shelter, by men for men, male only, has no similar funding restrictions.

Open your eyes and ears. When women spend so much time and effort explaining the realities, identifying existing examples of how gender ideology overrides the legal rights if women try listening instead of repeating the insipid and deliberate obfuscations.

We know how it is supposed to work. We also know how much time, money and effort is put into tryna Ng to maintain single sex female spaces. Stop pretending you have no idea what we are talking about

You have that reversed.

TRAs say that. Stonewall has long counselled that in its various expensive sessions, bought and believed by many government departments as well as large organisations. That their claims of being "ahead if the law"were shown, in a court, to mean they were misinforming all, hasn't stopped them.

Women here are saying that institutional capture means that it can effectively be impossible to insist on single sex spaces.

That you choose to spin that to make us out to be fucking stupid is your gamez not ours!

According to today's Telegraph Kier Starmer has pledged to introduce the Scottish legislation across the rest of the UK.

As Labour couldn't give two shits about women, not a big surprise.

It doesn't change much other than that you can change your sex on birth certificates and other documents - from what I gather.

Trans people have ALWAYS used women's spaces - this doesn't change that. I suspect that many women on here have shared a changing room with a trans-woman in the past and never even known.

The outrage is around a mythical belief that "men in dresses" are going to "attack" girls and women in women's spaces. I say mythical because barring a handful of cases, there is NO evidence (that I am aware of) that men routinely attack women in women's changing rooms/toilets. There are ALWAYS going to be a miniscule number of people who will break the law because people are people. But it is in no way some frequent occurrence. Anyone that claims it is needs to provide some detailed, evidence based research for me on the actual stats. That is not to say that any incident is okay, of course it isn't. Though we need laws that are proportionate and justifiable. People against the bathroom issue need to explain this... if children get molested by white men in their hundreds a year, should we ban all white men from school sites "in case" they molest someone? Because it is the same principle here. A handful of "trans" people attack women in women's spaces, so we ban ALL trans women from woman's spaces?

It is also interesting that trans people (esp. trans-women) are hugely demonised with no actual basis in evidence, yet if that happened to other minorities there would be uproar. Imagine saying that some black men are predators and therefore all black men should be treated with suspicion? Or some disabled people are benefits cheats therefore they are all out to screw over the system. Or some women kill their children, therefore we should send a safeguarding officer to every woman's house just in case. It is utterly ludicrous.

The fact is FEELING vulnerable doesn't mean you ARE vulnerable. I think we need to move away from this idea that "if I feel something it is valid" to a more objective, measured "knowledge".

BTW I am not on either side of the "debate". I can see WHY people may have this horrified response to these laws, especially if they have been traumatised by men who have sexually assaulted them. At the same time, we need to take a measured approach. If your trauma has led you to suspect every trans-woman is a bloke with a giant lurking in the toilet next to you then maybe that is something to work on.

I may be totally wrong and that is also okay. If you want to talk about my thoughts please feel free to DM me.

*I say mythical because barring a handful of cases, there is NO evidence (that I am aware of) that men routinely attack women in women's changing rooms/toilets
*
Is a handful of cases ok? How many rapes and attacks on women are an acceptable amount to you, in comparison to the hurt feelings of transwomen?

The fact is FEELING vulnerable doesn't mean you ARE vulnerable. I think we need to move away from this idea that "if I feel something it is valid" to a more objective, measured "knowledge".

I have a friend who was violently raped. A horrific situation.

She struggles with all men she doesn't know now. To come across a male body in an intimate space - no matter how innocent - would trigger her into a total meltdown. She's had years of therapy, but it runs that deep.

So you're telling me her feeling arent valid? Fuck right off with that.

Also, why are you telling women that what they feel isn't valid and we should be seeking more objective knowledge, when you're also telling men that what they 'feel' is more important than biological reality? What could such a double standard signify?

Oh yes. Let's have that number.

How many is a handful? So they're okay collateral, got it. How many more would be acceptable?

Kinda sounds like that number could go quite high for you while you're simultaneously gaslighting women that their feelings of vulnerability aren't valid.

Gross

So much to respond to in your post Burgoo but the irony of this was so delicious it warrants its own post and replication 3 times in bold

I think we need to move away from this idea that "if I feel something it is valid" to a more objective, measured "knowledge".

I think we need to move away from this idea that "if I feel something it is valid" to a more objective, measured "knowledge".

I think we need to move away from this idea that "if I feel something it is valid" to a more objective, measured "knowledge".

The fact is FEELING vulnerable doesn't mean you ARE vulnerable. I think we need to move away from this idea that "if I feel something it is valid" to a more objective, measured "knowledge".

I completely agree. Just because a male person feels that they are not male, doesn’t make that true. And there is no reason for them to feel vulnerable in the male toilets. Since there is no evidence that trans women are attacked in male toilets, so they can simply stay in the toilets that pertain to their sex, surely.