To find media discussion about trans issues far overstated compared to the actual seriousness of the issue?

[BarmyBrunhilde]

Full disclosure, I happily accept most trans people I've met as their transitioned gender which I know puts me at odds with most people on MN. But as a feminist and a lefty, even if one views trans women as men which I don't, in terms of political priorities it ranks so list on my list of concerns. I assume that applies to most people too (trans people included!).

What someone has listed on their birth certificate has no impact on my life, and surely minimal impact on most women's lives? Imo we should be focusing on cost of living crisis, housing, properly funding women's services including rape crisis services, funding childcare, sorting out the health service and bloody schools! Gender recognition comes way below those for me (even though I'm broadly supportive with some checks in place).

I know gender criticals won't agree with me, and maybe some trans people who feel very strongly, but I do feel there's a silent majority of us who just aren't that fussed?

probably, but I don't think that the activists will go for it because what they want is validation.

They don't give a shit about the impact on anyone else because it's all about them.

It's a fetish. Women must capitulate.

Oh sweet summer child.

Nothing other than complete domination will be acceptable.

My local secondary school that doubles as leisure centre evenings/weekends does (London).

Not everyone can afford private gyms/swimming pools, which is what you're probably talking about. Do you care?

In US, where self-id is much more widespread, mixed-sex in women's changing rooms is leading to these kinds of situations: https://twitter.com/mattxiv/status/1615733971207290883?cxt=HHwWhoC81Y_fnuwsAAAA

Women apparently don't deserve privacy and dignity of not being exposed to strangers' cocks if their owners 'identify as women'

And I don't believe that anyone who abandons most females to align themselves with the views of misogynistic men because they're also transphobic is a feminist. 🤷‍♀️

The case law you have cited is not as clear cut as your link makes out. It was less of a win and more uncontested.

The publican was a litigant in person and did not attend the final hearing. At the preliminary hearing the publican told the judge if he awarded damages he would wind up the company, which he did. The claimant did not have a GRC and it was not discussed in court and therefore for the purposes of considering discrimination the appropriate comparator would be other males. The claimant was not treated less favourably than any other male in the pub.

The judge also ignored the Green Case of the previous year which had already set a legal precedent. Had the judge used this precedent he would not have found in favour of the claimant in an unconteste case.

Sorry forgot the link

a-question-of-consent.net/2020/05/29/the-case-of-sb/

I agree with you. You should sign your kid up for her class. She’s getting bullied and threatened. 🥲 She just wants to teach shop with really big boobies? What’s wrong with that? It’s educational!

Let's not forget Shon advising teens to 'be sluttier than you are' and 'suck dick and get tits early'. Sounds like a perfect role model for confused adolescents.

lilymaynard.com/transitioning-children-how-young-is-too-young/

Have you looked at who is on your side of this argument? I've certainly never seen any gender critical women send death and rape threats for a start.
If you believe that men should have access to spaces where vulnerable women are, you don't hold the moral high ground you think you do.
And you're kidding yourself if you think most women support this. When women are given all the information, such as 95%+ of all TW keep their penis, they soon don't agree that they should have access to all women's spaces.
Many are under the false impression that TW are what was called transexual not too many years ago, IE mostly males who are attracted to other males and have had surgery.

OP's gone, but I'm glad she asked why GRC is a concern when trans women are already appropriating female spaces, resources and our political and social voices without them.

The gender supremacy movement (this being the movement for the supremacy of gender identity over sex) has mutated its concept of gender over time. The pattern has been to gain a legal concession based on one concept of gender, then asset that right for a much wider idea.

So, medically transitioned transsexuals were already living as women. However their actual sex, male, would be revealed by their legal documents. They wanted this concealed for their own privacy so the law gave them a legal fiction to allow them to conceal their birth sex. They didn't need the GRC to live as women, it didn't "change" anything.... except the tiny little detail that it established the concept of a legal sex which can be different to your birth sex.

The next step was to flip this concept 180. Legal sex was established as a legal fiction but the GS movement used it to claim the law recognizes male people can BE women. In GS eyes it's not longer a legal fiction, it's a legal record of fact.

So the concept the activists present of the trans woman mutates from the concept under which the GRA was shaped, ie men who are compelled to live "as" women, wanting to live as passing facsimiles of women and needing a GRC to maintain the il/de/lusion - to men who just are women, and who can be as openly, obviously male as they want because their gender isn't related to their body.

But now, the GRC, established as a legal fiction concealing birth sex to support the "as a women" trans women, becomes a problem because it was based in the assumption that the trans women needs the legal fiction to hide her maleness. In that model, her need for it - her "womanhood" if you will - has to be in some way proved or earned, and that doesn't match the new, was-always-a-woman construction where maleness is fine and a GRC is not a fiction for privacy, but a validation of the fact that she is and always was a woman.

So now the demand is for the law to change again to "catch up" with what trans women are already doing. "It won't make a difference, after all they are already in your spaces, and taking your resources, and replacing over your experiences with their own stories of womanhood"

But what it does do is move that baseline another jump, from a GRC being a legal fiction to preserve the privacy of someone living "as a" woman, to a enshrinement in law that a male person is a woman if that is what (s)he says (s)he is. The concept of womanhood is relocated in the law's eyes from the body to the mind/will, not just for trans women but for all women.

So, the important thing isn't what someone can do the day they get their GRC that they couldn't do the day before. It's what further mutation of the concept of gender will it be used to normalise?

I came on to post the government's statement oh reasons for invoking s.35 but I see @LangClegsInSpace beat me to it. That lays it all out in a measured way.

It doesn't affect me but I have two friends with trans offspring, you know, the ones who take hormones and get parts of their bodies cut off, undergoing surgeries with a 50% failure rate. Yeap, I should just say "I'm all right Jack" and cross my fingers that the contagion doesn't reach my dgd.

I vaguely skipped over all of the OP’s posts. So am admitting that I haven’t RTFT.

OP - I don’t really care about the legalities etc. I care about safe spaces for women.

I am NOT tarring all of the trans community with the same brush. Though, TBF, it would need to be a bloody big brush according to some lobbying groups.

The fact that ANY man could have a much easier way to gain access to female-only spaces is wrong. How you can’t see that is, quite frankly, bloody bonkers. Yeah, spend 3 months “living as a woman” and here’s your new identity. I know I’m simplifying here, but that is what it boils down to.

Fuck that for a game of soldiers.

The world needs to wake up to a new requirement. A safe third space for the trans community. I am pretty sure that an overwhelming majority would fully support this.

What we won’t support is being shoved aside to make space for others.

Safe spaces for adult human females should not be factored into the needs of others. Full stop. No arguments.

Agreed. How on earth anyone is left in their class I don’t know!

Yup, I'm just not very fussed. I've met one (openly) trans person ever and she was nice. I've also met a couple of transvestites (men who regularly wore women's clothing in public but still considered themselves male), also both nice. That's about it.

The percentage of people who are trans is so tiny that the media frenzy surrounding it on both sides seems totally out of proportion.

I do hate, though, how the actions of a few perves are used to tar all trans-women on here, as though biological women can't be perves too.

yabu

Women care because it impacts their rights

"I think those of us who spend time regularly on FWR boards (Or feminism:sex and gender discussions) will recognise this style of faux innocent post.

The OP has no interest whatsoever in considering the viewpoints of others but will have a lot of fun getting other posters to explain things, will not engage in any serious debate and at some point will leave with a sigh about how Mumsnet used to be lovely but it’s all transphobia now 🙄"

I've spent no time in the FWR board because the trans debate holds little day to day interest for me, but even I recognise the OP is not here in good faith. They are not debating at all, just requesting evidence for everyone else's pov.

Well yes, you do have to show your birth certificate to employers, everyone needs to show proof of ID to show you're working legally 🙄

The new legislation in Scotland requires no medical professional to diagnose gender dysphoria or for a transition pathway (ie hormones or surgery) to be begun or intended in order for a GRC to be obtained. A male-born person simply says they are female and obtains the certificate.

Real-life day-to-day example: Said person above (male-born, no transition process) accesses female-only spaces, let's say the female changing room in a gym. Your 16 year old daughter is upset that a male-person with his male penis is in the female changing rooms when she's getting changed and complains ti the gym. Male-born person is approached by the gym, waves their GRC at them. Your daughter is told this person is female and has every right to be in the female changing room.

Also, male-born people's offending rates are unaffected by gender identity. A male-born person who obtains a GRC is no less a threat in criminal terms than a man who does not committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/

So in the same way that - whilst we acknowledge NAMALT - self-preservation dictates we often assume they are until proven otherwise, the same logic can be applied to male-born people who obtain GRCs. Uttering the words 'I am a woman' unfortunately does not make a male-born person statistically less of a threat to women than any other male-born person.

If a GRC means as little as the OP implies, why is there a need for it?

Self ID is a fundamental change and as far as I am aware, a change which is a first in UK law. I am sure that many people who wished we had remained in the EU would like to self-ID as being from an EU country and have a passport additionally from one of the EU member states.

Even though the number of people who obtain a GRC may remain small, it will change attitudes. Perverts and/or other men wishing harm or voyeurism will feel emboldened, people in managerial or supervisory position less likely to challenge for concern of losing their jobs, and women perhaps more likely to avoid single-sex spaces for fear that such perverts cannot be challenged.

If we look at a different though positive result of a change that seems principally about law but has changed attitudes, think of same-sex marriage versus civil partnerships. Or take the change in divorce law and how many more divorces happened.

I think this deserves to be read again, by any lurkers who may not fully understand what the women and children of Scotland are up against.

Then look up Maggie Chapmans explanation of how we need to explore allowing 6 year old to change their legal sex.

Look at your 6 year old dinosaur, your 6 year old fireman, your 6 year old cat, your 6 year old robot.......and tell me you don't think its lunacy.

Full disclosure, I happily accept most trans people I've met as their transitioned gender which I know puts me at odds with most people on MN.

This is just wrong. Most people on MN happily accept people as their chosen gender - it’s their sex that’s the issue.

The whole premise of being trans is that your gender identity doesn’t match your sex and that these are completely different things. Cool. So why at the same time pretend that they are the same thing and that gender identity IS sex??