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

I'd actually worry the instrument would damage a neo vagina, don't they need daily dilation to stay open at all? Even full surgery doesn't actually change your sex it's just plastic surgery approximations without much sensual sensation.

I did once read that a post-operative individual ended up needing surgery to repair their neo-vagina, after they'd seen a non-specialist for a check-up? The HCP proceeded as if it were a vagina, and used a speculum, which caused internal tearing.

Why is India proud of wasting valuable NHS resources?

Wow - there is so much wrong with this.
Why did they even attempt a smear test?
I don't think a smear test would be offered or attempted in women who have had some forms of hysterectomy, including cervix removal.
Was the nurse under duress because of policy?

The "neo" vagina is not a vagina thanks for using the phrase NeighbourhoodWatchPotholeDivision - it is a stoma, a hole or opening into the lower abdominal cavity.
Epidermal skin is used to line the opening, electrolysis is used to remove any hair roots.
Women have vaginas lined with mucosal membrane, and very efficient at self cleaning.
A neo vagina or stoma doen't have this mechanism, so have to be washed out with soap and water a few times a week ( it is just "normal" skin) as you would skin elsewhere on your body.
Normal skin is not supposed to live internally, so very prone to infection, the laser hair removal is nor always completely successful, so may grow pubic hair inside the stoma.
The stoma has to be dilated frequently otherwise the hole may close as the body tries to heal itself.
I am sure surgeons are rewarded well.

The surgeons may be rewarded too well, frankly. After what I have read concerning the recovery period post-surgery, I would not wish this procedure upon my worst enemy. It's hard to stomach the idea anyone makes a living from performing it on multiple patients.

NeighbourhoodWatchPotholeDivision I agree.

Do doctors still take an oath " First do no harm?"

Slicing off a healthy penis and testicles then making some bad attempt at a "lady hole" is very much harm imo.

If a fit person believes he is a one legged person and asks a surgeon to cut of a healthy functioning leg- would that not be classed as assault?

I see "gender affirming " surgery as assault too- and the surgeon is paid to do it.

Because India is a bleep bleep bleep bleep bleep.

Sorry can't answer I would absolutely be banned.

The dodgy suicide ‘study’ and resulting oft-repeated “most vulnerable” shtick are what surgeons use to justify the harm they do to healthy breast tissue and genitalia.

That and do everything they can to shut down any sort of studies into regret, detransition rates or anything else which would force them to own the truth (and stop the gravy train).

India encountered a unisex toilet in an airport, (labelled "gender-neutral"), which had a sign on it explaining that single-sex provision was available for those who needed it, in another part of the airport.

India trotted off across the airport to use the female-only facilities, and boasted that they'd "made a point of it". Why?

It clearly wasn't about "needing to pee" because there was a "gender-neutral" toilet right there.

Because it’s all about control and invasion.

Don't worry. I know what you mean. All people who actually want genuine equality also know.

I remember the tweets. They were finding it hilariously funny to intentionally deprive females of any resources at all.

Dog in the manger. All own needs met: then sets out to prevent equality of access for mere females.

This is an interesting related thread.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4703437-whilst-we-are-being-told-that-gra-will-make-no-difference-to-women-please-remember-what-stonewall-are-currently-campaigning-for

Here is what Stonewall are campaigning for:

A review of the Equality Act 2010 to include ‘gender identity’ rather than ‘gender reassignment’ as a protected characteristic and to remove exemptions, such as access to single-sex spaces

Stonewall started campaigning for this several years ago but then denied it and put it on the back burner when clearly they thought they wouldn't get any takers but now it's back on their agenda.

They have not offered a workable definition of "gender identity" and it's impossible to prove what anyone's gender identity is because it's transphobic to refuse to accept gender is fluid and changeable and someone's gender identity is whatever they say it is at any moment in time.

Stonewall thinks this is adequate justification for getting rid of single sex services and spaces. If anyone tells you that self ID does not pose a threat to womens rights, they are lying and they know they are lying.

Time to give this petition another push, please sign and share.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/petitions_noticeboard/4668426-petition-update-the-equality-act-to-make-clear-the-characteristic-sex-is-biological-sex

And if you don't think anyone should be able to demand a falsified birth certificate then there is also this petition. Please sign and share.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/petitions_noticeboard/4688427-repeal-the-gra

Of course they did, not surprised at all.

Am not on Twitter, but really pissed off if they’ve posted a screenshot of a smear invite. That speaks volumes re their mindset. It is SO offensive that their need for validation overrides the reality of women who actually need screening.

And India also inadvertently shines a big spotlight on the stupidity of a system that let's a male of the species obfuscate their true identify so much, that a man gets a smear test appointment.

I mean it's important info that f or m on medical records, so many emergency treatments have different treatment protocols depending on the sex of the patient. It's private confidential info, why does India's need to be validated override India's bloody common sense.

Giving this petition a bump for those who want to protect single sex spaces

Petition: Update the Equality Act to make clear the characteristic “sex” is biological sex www.mumsnet.com/Talk/petitions_noticeboard/4668426-petition-update-the-equality-act-to-make-clear-the-characteristic-sex-is-biological-sex?msgid=-4668426#-4668426

Thank you! I’ve signed this petition. I read it now has 60,000 signatures. It is important to establish that biological sex is a protected characteristic, and not to allow it to be corrupted by linguistics. ‘Gender’ is not the same thing as ‘sex’ and they must not be seen as the same thing when it comes to rape crisis centres, prisons, sport, healthcare settings and protocols etc. IMO given the current situation* it is more important than ever to be crystal clear that rights pertaining to biological sex are firmly established as being based on biological sex and not ‘gender’ or for holders of a GRC for that sex.

*The recent Haldane ruling in Scotland is worrying - that a GRC is not ‘just paperwork’ (as is often claimed) - it affects your legal sex in all areas.

Thank you everyone who has signed this petition.

here is a link for those who are interested in signing.
www.mumsnet.com/talk/petitions_noticeboard/4668425-sex-matters-petition

And here is a link for those who want to understand more:

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4668404-update-the-equality-act-to-make-clear-the-characteristic-sex-is-biological-sex?page=1

I enjoy reading threads such as this where posters who are not regular posters from the feminism boards discuss this issue with insight and knowledge. Even 6-12 months ago this thread would have been littered with posters repetitively stating ‘you are all hateful! You are an extremist minority!’ and ‘You are all old dinosaurs and are dying soon’.

Well, we still regularly see this last one, but given the rise of the young women now posting their disgust that a person declaring themselves to be a ‘girl of x days’ gets an audience with Biden for being what??? A girl of x days?…, I expect that that ridiculous claim will also be seen as the falsehood the ‘you are all hateful’ and ‘you are the extremist minority’ went too.

Hint: if you cannot support your claims with anything more than falsity and emotional manipulation, that is a sure sign you are the dishonest one.

This past month has highlighted exactly where this end result of these demands leads. For instance, any woman who thinks that a board that is supposed to be balanced by sex so females have equal representation but now has the majority male thanks to an poorly written law is just fine, will never see the inherent and obvious issues with that. That was just the direct result of the FWS judicial review.

The GRR is most definitely harmful. I have yet to see any trans activist describe exactly how under the current laws that males can be excluded at an individual level from
services, if ID has been changed and no one can question further. Not one activist.

Why is that? Why is it that they tell women that the GRR will have no impact on women, because there are supposedly these protections already, but cannot explain the exact actions a refuge can take to refuse a male access legally?

Anyone believing the placating words from such activists really need to start reading more widely or to own their own ignoring of fact and truth. Not someone’s twisted truth, the material reality.

Loopholes forced into poorly worded laws are harmful to those needing that law’s protection.

The GRR is most definitely harmful. I have yet to see any trans activist describe exactly how under the current laws that males can be excluded at an individual level from
services, if ID has been changed and no one can question further. Not one activist

My understanding is that a GRC is not required to change ID such as a passport or drivers license, so even if a single sex service required proof of sex by ID (which obviously isn’t the case for things like toilets anyway), how would making it easier to get a GRC make it harder to exclude trans women?

@aseriesofstillimages surely the point is that making it easier to get a GRC makes it harder to exclude a wide variety of men with different motives from accessing single sex spaces/ services/ prisons etc? It’s not about making it harder for TW per se- but that anyone who says they’re a woman can get a GRC now. How do we exclude men who have done this in order to pursue women they’ve been harassing (for example)? Where is the gate keeping?

For me there is also an issue of presuming that I have something in common with a TW that I don't with other males.

If we make gender an identity issue then we either have to assume the identity of a lot of women, or we have to admit that there are very few people with a woman gender identity and those people are as likely to be male as female.

I personally am not just worried about men pretending to be trans to gain access to vulnerable women. There is much else to be worried about including that this is a direction of travel which is already making it impossible to protect female spaces. The only way forward is to repeal the GRA and to properly and formally acknowledge that 'woman' refers only to one's body and that spaces were only ever segregated by biological sex.

What I really meant was, how does making it easier to get a GRC make it harder to exclude anyone from a single sex service? A service provider which has a policy of excluding trans women as well as men (and which considers that policy to be a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim, and therefore not unlawfully discriminatory) would have to employ some way of identifying trans women and distinguishing them from cis gender women, but presumably they wouldn’t be using birth certificates (or passports or driving licenses) to do that.

I see. So because men and TW can - and often do - look identical, effectively you are opening up the spaces to all?

Well it nails the key issues doesn't it?

• there is no practicable difference between one male and another male regardless of what legal documents they may hold
• there is a strong expectation that some male people will not voluntarily respect the need of female people for single sex spaces for equality of access and inclusion, or the boundary of single sex spaces, and females should expect them to attempt to deceive entry. (which seems a bit transphobic to me but ok.)

In a nutshell, why the GRA needs to be repealed and single sex spaces for women protected in law. It would take a lot more good will and generosity from males for it to ever be able to work.

What I mean is, that contra to what pp said, a GRC is neither necessary nor sufficient for a trans woman to gain entry to a single sex women’s service. So making it easier to get a GRC will not make it harder for single sex services which choose to exclude TW to do so. It will only have an effect in cases where a service provider has adopted a policy which includes TW with a GRC but excludes those without one.