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

It's got fuck all to do with gender dysphoria.

Neither has being trans these days, in fact activists would call you transphobic for suggesting it does.

Only just picked up on this thread and haven't read the whole thing but extremely gratifying to see that the vast majority of views here coincide with my own

Women and, particularly, girls are entitled to their private areas, sports teams and so on. And as for the demonisation of lesbians - words fail me

Hopefully this sort of progressive authoritarianism gets rolled back in 2023 but Sunak is weak and Starmer looks like he will sign up to it

I am male. It is ridiculous that I could claim to be female if I get arrested and must then be held as a female prisioner. With no checks, no protection for my female cell mate.
at a local school there is a 16 year old but who turns up in a dress when he feels like it...fair play for breaking down clothing taboos and if when he is older and fully matured physically and mentally I would agree he should be able to undergo surgery to become a women. But I wouldn't want him in the girls changing room

I agree, I worry for my daughter

Hopefully this sort of progressive authoritarianism gets rolled back in 2023 but Sunak is weak and Starmer looks like he will sign up to it

Starmer is fully committed to enacting the same legislation if Labour win the next election. He's been full on TWAW since he became party leader. Many lefty women feel politically homeless.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4704243-telegraph-keir-starmer-pro-trans-laws-are-needed-across-uk

Looks like Sunak may well support action to block the Scottish GRR which will go down like a cup of cold sick with the SNP and start a war which may end up with the break up of the union.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4703411-secretary-of-state-for-scotland-looking-at-using-westminster-powers-to-overule-gender-recognition-bill

The whole thing is a shit show of badly thought out legislation.

Get yourself over to the petitions board, there are a couple of relevant petitions to sign and share.

Good points, not surprised about KS though, especially given the support from Scottish labour for the bill. Not that long ago on Mumsnet there was a Q&A with him and Bridget Phillipson and so many questions submitted were on this, hope he saw them but doubt it. Labour is not listening, they are not reading the room, and they will lose support. And the Tories are hearing and will make political gain from it, especially as they’ve not got much to go on elsewhere, and despite all this happening in their watch these last 12 years.

There are trans women who oppose this legislation, who are happy to be trans women and to accept they will never be anything other than biologically male.

Debbie Hayton wrote an article about autogynephilia (gratification from perceiving oneself as a woman) and she considers that many (if not most) trans women are autogynephiliac and genuine, ‘born in the wrong body’ trans women are a minority. She admitted that she couldn’t honestly say that she wasn’t autogynephiliac herself.

Back in the 60s my grandmother was good friends with Roberta Cowell, Britain’s first transsexual M2F. She absolutely felt that she was female and had the full surgical transition, which was illegal at that time. The surgeon who performed the operation was her friend who was a trans man. It’s an amazing story.

It is not necessary to obliterate women’s sex-based rights and protections to ensure trans people can live as they wish. Women are already being persecuted, hounded, even threatened with prison for airing their opinions, these politicians want to expose them to even more harm at the behest of a tiny very vocal minority. The fact that the main fuss centres around trans women (ie men) speaks volumes.

"This could easily be fixed by making clear that sex and gender are distinct and currently there is only a legal reason to discriminate on sex not gender so even with a grc you would not be allowed into single sex spaces

Further problem I think is the reinforcement of stereotypes in children."

Absolutely correct - and it isn't just children who will get indoctrinated about gender stereotypes. As someone old enough to remember just how biased Uk society used to be e.g. having to get my DH's signature on my tax return and being turned down for a management job because 'the men wouldn't like it' (really!), I find the return to outdated stereotypes quite depressing. It feels like the last 50 years were wasted effort in trying to achieve female equality.

I haven’t read the whole thread, apologies. But has ONE SINGLE person managed to successfully show that this legislation isn’t harmful to women and girls?

Defenders of the GRR claim that self-ID has passed in other countries with no problems for women but this is lies- there have been plenty of documented harms in those countries.

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

Please understand readers, it is not standard practice to ask people to DM them to ‘talk about’ thoughts. Please be very careful with this. It is unusual behaviour to take discussion ‘off board’.

Also a sure sign that posters have a political agenda and cannot support their opinions with evidence. At all. It all hinges on emotional manipulation. There is absolutely nothing else.

Defenders of the GRR claim that self-ID has passed in other countries with no problems for women but this is lies- there have been plenty of documented harms in those countries.

I post the following links fairly regularly because they are such a good resource for news about how gender ideology is affecting women and children around the world.

www.womenarehuman.com/

reduxx.info/

And this is how proponents of self ID claim it's causing no harm in other countries:

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4700477-no-evidence-to-suggest-abuse-of-self-id

I'm a long way behind so this may already have been answered. In the current GRA we have:

“the acquired gender” is to be construed in accordance with section 1(2),

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/25

Section 1(2) says:

In this Act “the acquired gender”, in relation to a person by whom an application under subsection (1) is or has been made, means—

(a)in the case of an application under paragraph (a) of that subsection, the gender in which the person is living, or

(b)in the case of an application under paragraph (b) of that subsection, the gender to which the person has changed under the law of the country or territory concerned.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/1

No further definitions of gender, sex, man or woman are provided.

And your approach neglects the very important fact that women can generally tell who is male and who is not.

Therefore ‘your’ approach simply says to women who have been traumatised by male violence against women and girls that you couldn’t give a shit about their needs and would prioritise a male over them.

A male who has no penis is still a male! And it is likely to cause a female distress. Obviously not you. But you don’t count as you are not one of those in prison being forced to share. What a fucking privileged position you have?

There are already vulnerable male prisoner estates. Why do you choose to ignore this? A new facility was built and was rejected by the trans lobby groups. I can go find the name of the facility if you like.

Just own your opinion. You choose male prioritisation over female. I believe you always have done on the FWR board.

A new facility was built and was rejected by the trans lobby groups. I can go find the name of the facility if you like.

www.prisonphone.co.uk/blog/hmp-downview-the-first-prison-with-a-wing-dedicated-to-transgender-inmates/

Of course it's never been about safety, it's always been about access to women either to abuse us or in settings outside prison to use us as props to validate someone's gender feels.

HMP Downview. It was heartily disliked by trans prisoners. It also took away space in the female estate which (I believe) had been previously earmarked to improve the facilities for female prisoners.

The MOJ judicial review basically said that women's safety, dignity and well being is simply less important than transwomen prisoners having the opportunity to socialise with women.

Resources, services and spaces for women are simply seen as something to be exploited by people who see women as service humans and human shields.

Thank you FOJN I am away from my desktop and it is very hard to find and post links where I am.

The MOJ judicial review basically said that women's safety, dignity and well being is simply less important than transwomen prisoners having the opportunity to socialise with women.

I really wish posters would own their political agendas. It is very clear to anyone who has read widely about this, anyone who has listened to female prisioners in the UK and USA or listened to Rhona Hotchkiss who has been prioritised and who has been told to suck any distress or harm they feel or encounter.

Let us not forget the rate of sexually abused women or women victims of male violence who are in these prisons. And we have had rapes, we have also had Scottish women make statements that some males have been upfront about getting into the female estate for sex.

Regardless of whether a male believes wholeheartedly they are a woman or whether they are intact or not. When there is the potential for women to be harmed in any way, not males should be in with them.

The other issue with the recent guidance is that it's non-statutary and it contradicts the older statutory code, which has a higher status in law.

A while back, EHRC said they also intend to produce new statutory code but I haven't heard anything else about that. Presumably there will be a consultation at some point.

My comment about the MOJ was meant very much as a criticism of the decision made.

Why should they clearly be in a women's prison? They are not women.

Do you think any other men who have been victims of male sexual violence and are in for financial fraud should be moved to the women's estate?

If the majority of male trans prisoners are housed in the male estate then there is clearly no reason why they all can't be.

I am sorry wait, I am in full agreement. I was using your words to bounce off for those posters who persistently post ‘what abouts’ and ‘but if a male has truly transitioned’! Because those have become very repetitive on this thread.

I am saying that those who keep posting about ‘lack of evidence of crimes while in prison’, and ‘Whatabout those with full surgery’ and ‘I did x with my mate and I was all right’ and ‘those saying ‘transwomen are predatory’.

I mean the last one is clear fuckwittery. I am sure not one poster on this thread has said ‘all’ males are like that, however, that is exactly what lazy posting implying that posting about safeguarding risks is saying just that.

It is not new. But I think some posters think they are stating something never seen before.

I should have been clearer wait. I apologise.

@Helleofabore no need for an apology at all - I thought that was probably the meaning of your post - I just thought I should clarify just in case.

I think this is a very interesting study to have come out of Nederlands and Denmark this month.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36534950/

In prostate cancer patients, resistance exercise training counteracts the adverse effects of ADT on body composition, muscle mass, muscle strength and aerobic capacity, with no additional benefits of protein supplementation.

If prostate cancer patients can counter adverse effects of lack of testosterone, why are people still trying to tell us that a special group of males are more like ‘females’ physiologically? Just about every study in the past few years has disproved that males lose their advantage to be similar of females.

This is not just important for sport, the implications to women generally is that these males will simply be more likely to overpower the average female vs the likelihood of other females overpowering another females.

It just continues the fuckwittery to continue to deny this.

Oh dear, you've got this completely upside down.

We know that most males are not violent. But we also know that women and girls are at risk of male violence, which is why we keep all males out of women's spaces. We don't know which males are dangerous, therefore we keep them all out.

There is no reason why the same should not apply to males who identify as women.

There is no evidence to suggest that they are any less likely to be dangerous than other males. This is doubly the case with self ID, since literally anyone, even a rapist, can say they are a woman and we are supposed to just believe them.

Transgender males are male, like all other males, which means none of them should be in women's spaces.

They may feel vulnerable. They may feel marginalised. They may feel that they are female. Although they cannot possibly know that because they are not, and never have been, female. But none of these feelings are based in reality. The statistics show that over the last decade the number of trans people murdered has been less than one per year, compared to 2-3 women per week. They have the Labour Party, the Lib Dems, the Greens, half the Tories, the civil service, the police, the NHS, Stonewall and tons of other trans activist groups banging on about how marginalised they are, whilst other groups don't get a look in. They have charities and services dedicated to trans people, whereas women are denied single sex services.

As you say, FEELING vulnerable doesn't mean you ARE vulnerable.

The reality is that trans people are not particularly vulnerable, nor marginalised. They are in fact a very privileged group whose demands have been prioritised over the rights and safety of women and children.

Trans women are men. They have nothing in common with women that we do not all have in common with men. We share neither a sex nor any kind of identity, and there is no logic whatsoever for them to be in women's spaces or women's sports.

Literally the only reason for including them is that they want to be included. And of course, what they want matters, and what the rest of us want doesn't.

Oh, and by the way.

Apart from the whole, "having a penis" thing, this is THE biggest clue that trans women are men, not women.

Because if they were women, no one would care about their feelings, no one would care about their identities, no one would care about their safety, they would just be expected to lump it.

The only reason society is bending over backwards to accommodate them is because they are men.