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?

And there was the mum who, in order to have a visit from her children, had to be locked into a holding cell unsupervised for 15 minutes with a convicted male rapist.

Do you have a link? Not heard about this

Makes a lovely change from numerous posters not engaging in debate but attacking the one poster who doesn't fall in line

You said me not answering questions on what gender is (which as I can see has no relevance to anythning) was farcical. I haven't answere d for my own boundaries.

Re - my boundaries - why do I have none? At a guess, because I've dared to say I think OP's opening discussion would be interesting, I think MN can be an echo chamber on this subject and I don't think it's always a ground for debate, that must mean I AGREE with all these awful things happening in prisons and to women?

Of course I bloody dont.

But in the real world, it's not black and white, one or the other. FWIW, I agree with many of the sentiments on here. Just not all. and in the world of MN that's shocking behavior (which proves Orchid and I's point about the narrative).

Time and time again we see the same thing. Dare to step away from the narrative and you must not care about the rights of women and must agree with all these disgusting things. Same old and it's tedious.

That's quite extreme language, describing those asking someone to explain their position as "attackers".

Odd.

Pointing out that a poster's argument does not stack up is not an attack.

Pointing out that an assertion is not an argument is not an attack.

Pointing out that a poster is applying double standards is not an attack.

Unless "attack" is another of the words that has a personal definition that need never be disclosed but is nevertheless a fundamental and non-challengable proof?

I have no need to "attack" anyone, because I have a well reasoned position which I can back up and defend, and which I am not afraid to state clearly, as I have several times on this thread. Do you?

There are some very informative articles on this in the Legal Feminist website and on Sex Matters. There is also the statement of reasons published by the government and the five letters/statements by the EHRC that explain the complications it causes.

Yes, and there was the letter to the Scottish government by the UN Special Rapporteur against Violence against Women and Girls, Reem Alsalem. Who Sturgeon saw fit to call "the Person From the UN" and disregard, because she was totally interested in looking at all the evidence and making a balanced and informed decision.

You said me not answering questions on what gender is (which as I can see has no relevance to anythning) was farcical.

This thread seems to be about the process for obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC)

When a person obtains one (a GRC) it enables them to falsify legal documents, such as birth certificate and passports.

It means that their previous identity is erased which means that it is open to abuse.

Given the implications at law of a GRC it seems quite clear to me that it is essential to define gender.

I can't think of any other laws that create risk which don't have fundamental definitions clearly set out.

So why don't you think a definition of 'gender' is relevant to anything?

This.
I am so sad for the effective exclusion of so many women from public spaces. I hear about swimming sessions, gym classes, women’s cycling groups that are designed to be a fun and supportive female only environment now rendered unavailable to many women because they gave either been persuaded or coerced into allowing male born trans people to join.

The swimming ponds at Hampstead Heath are a case in point. There is a mens pond, a mixed pond and a women’s pond except that the women’s pond now admits male people in a self id basis. So men have a choice of three ponds, including a male only single sex pond. Women who want a single sex pond have none.

Biological sex IS black and white. Binary. You are female. Or you are male. One or the bloody other. Determined at conception. Not open to change.

It's simple really.

Of course you're right. It doesn't impact me too much either.

But I'm not a vulnerable woman staying in a refuge.
I'm not a vulnerable woman housed in a prison.
I'm not a young boy or girl growing up in a school and being asked inappropriate questions and lied to about reality.
I don't really use public toilets.

I'm more than happy, it doesn't impact me.

Yay us.

I think this is a really important post.

Especially given that males are being access to women's spaces based upon an undefinable concept of 'gender'.

Why is an undefinable feeling more important than these women?

YANBU, OP

Ignoring the needs of other women because you are ok is not feminism.

From another thread in FWR, about the requirement to notify if the person is a convicted (not a charged) sex offender (my bold):

For the benefit of others:

2. At Stage 2 therefore I made a commitment that ahead of commencement of the Bill the Cabinet Secretary for Justice will introduce regulations to amend the Sex Offender Notification Requirements so that those on the register are required to notify the Police with details as to whether they have made an application for a gender recognition certificate.

So the process is that a sex offender applies for a GRC, if they decide to follow the rules they notify the Police, if the Police can be arsed they do a check on the background of the sex offender to do a full review to determine whether their risk is low enough to not prevent grant of the GRC, the Police then interact with the General Registrar who controls the process of granting GRCs, and as a result of this, apparently, GRCs only go to sex offenders who present a low enough risk for them holding a GRC not to be of concern.

As pp on the thread said, what could possibly go wrong?

To me this is a immediate and pressing issue.
We have already seen how the UK GRA laws were badly drawn up and there have been many consequences that seemingly no-one anticipated

This needs to be stopped now or we will quickly fall into complete identity politics. It won't just be sex, it'll be age, religion, disability - all the supposed protected 'characteristics'.

You hear trans identifying men on the radio saying they've used female toilets (to use any easy example) for years and never had a problem. 99.9% of women can see it's a man. Many don't like it but think 'live and let live, doing no harm', many are too scared to confront. Many will stop using those facilities because of the presence of a man.

You are right that generally these individuals won't have a GRC and will use the facilities anyway. This is not a reason to just let this law go through. If anything stopping this is the next step for women to go forward and ensure sex is correctly recognised in all areas of life ie take the GRA back to what it should be - you can wear what you like. Identify your gender as you like but you cannot change sex. This impacts me and ALL the women in the country because it means we are respected and given equal and safe opportunities.

So stop the whole certificate relating to 'sex', make it 'gender' and ensure definitions are
💯

None of these "oh yah me too" ploppers are feminists.

To quote another seasoned poster, it's not about you.

Unless youre a new poster or choose to ignore the very personal insults one endures on the feminist boards, you are aware of what I mean.

Re your last point, no, not always. I have my beliefs, I know how I feel about certain things, but I'm not an expert with a cemented position. And outside the world of MN, I dont think most people are. And those people are just as within their rights to comment and engage without being interviewed with the air of a televised political debate. If I say I don't believe transwomen are men, I don't have to then answer 6 questions on the construction of gender while posters take my answer apart. If I sympathise with some of the struggles trans people face, i don't deserve to be accused of agreeing with rapists in women's prisons. It's not a black and white topic.

Arrogance.

You dont know them/us.

Setting yourselves up as the patron saints of feminists as some sort of judging panel as to who is and isnt - if you choose to do that that's fine.

But I'm afraid you don't get to define other people.

You hear trans identifying men on the radio saying they've used female toilets (to use any easy example) for years and never had a problem. 99.9% of women can see it's a man. Many don't like it but think 'live and let live, doing no harm', many are too scared to confront. Many will stop using those facilities because of the presence of a man.

You are right that generally these individuals won't have a GRC and will use the facilities anyway. This is not a reason to just let this law go through. If anything stopping this is the next step for women to go forward and ensure sex is correctly recognised in all areas of life ie take the GRA back to what it should be - you can wear what you like. Identify your gender as you like but you cannot change sex. This impacts me and ALL the women in the country because it means we are respected and given equal and safe opportunities.

So stop the whole certificate relating to 'sex', make it 'gender' and ensure definitions are
💯^

Yes. That's what will eventually be needed. Or the world really won't be a very welcoming place for women and girls.

Assuming everyone must have the same views as you or they're not a feminist is not feminism.

I agree with this. Is that allowed?

Let's rely on sex offenders being honest about it knowing it might stall them getting a GRC. Top safeguarding!

@BarmyBrunhilde , the Haldane ruling means a legal sex matters more than biological sex.

Under the EA2010, transwomen can be excluded from single sex spaces and provisions when it’s a “proportional response to a legitimate aim.”

The GRR in Scotland and Haldane ruling mean this would no longer apply. No female only sport, no single sex refuges, prisons, health care services, counselling, no lesbian only clubs and activities. Any 16 year old male who wants to could apply for a certificate and gain access. Anyone.

Women whose religious beliefs require single sex spaces will no longer be able to participate in much of public life. Those who avoid males through trauma, belief, privacy etc will lose out.

Where statistics no longer accurately measure a population, we’re all at risk of losing out.

Once GRCs are handed out to anyone asking, and take precedence over biological sex, women’s rights are over.

That affects me, and affects every woman I know.

Do you understand the nuance in the language?

You might refer to people as being ‘gender critical’. But you don’t refer to them as ‘gender criticals’, do you?

Well you might. However, That usage in the OP is dehumanising people who might describe themselves as gender critical.

As I said. If someone used the sentence ”I know transes won't agree with me”, I would expect MNHQ to delete it. If you cannot present an argument without dehumanising people, the you are not confident of your argument clearly. Or you have taken it from
people who view feminists as not human.

”I have also seen numerous references to trans people that do more than strip them of their identity”. please explain what you mean here.

Granted.

But that doesn't solve the issue, does it?