to ask why you wouldn’t sign the petition?

[CircleSquareCircleSquare]

The petition set up by Amy Desir (one of the women who self identified as a man to attend a men only swim session) is asking the government to consult women on privacy and dignity that could be removed or impacted by proposed changes to the gender recognition act.

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/214118

The petition is merely asking for debate - doesn’t it come to something when women have to petition the government to have to ask to debate their safety?

Most gender critical feminists recognise trans human rights but we don’t want their identity and wishes to be placed above our safety.
I posted on MN recently about my experience of living in a domestic violence refuge as a child and now I was terrified of men, a male bodied person presenting as a female in that safe space would have terrified me and impacted my PTSD more than the other experiences already have.

If you haven’t signed it why not? Please reconsider, if only so both sides can be heard. Of course signing isn’t mandatory and I’m not angry but I would be interested in hearing more.

If you would like to sign it, you can find it here
petition.parliament.uk/petitions/214118 - your details are kept private. Please consider sharing.

I signed it.

Good luck.

peacheachpearplum i understand what you describe but as i say not possible in either of the two pools i have in mind.

Anyway it's about much more than changing areas for me.

Waddlelikeapenguin, I do like the arrangement at the Victorian pool. I was always happier when kids went to this pool without an adult as I think alot of bullying can go on in the changing rooms and the cubicles round the pool make it all much too open for anything like that going unobserved. I suppose the only downside is you have to have your shower with a costume on but that seemed a price worth paying.

It might not be all about changing rooms but it is something that always comes up and I think clothes shops should have cubicles and as for swimming pools the Victorians could teach us a thing or two.

Stillscreaming - My reasons are legion.

This isn't very impressive when you've only managed to state seven (presumably the most persuasive?) of your 'legion' reasons and all seven are a bit shonky.

To avoid a wall of text, I'll address each in a separate post.

1. It doesn't say who will do this 'representing'. The views of those who claim to want debate, range from those who are mildly gender critical to those who are rabidly anti trans. The rabidly anti trans are most shouty, I suspect they'll be doing the representing and that makes me flinch.

It's up to the government who they consult. I would imagine a consultation would consist of an open invitation to orgs and individuals to submit written evidence and then the government would choose who to consult further. That's how the trans equality report worked and that appears to be how the Scottish consultation works. They may also extend specific invitations to the orgs and public services that are doing the donkey work and are in direct contact with vulnerable women.

2. Over 204 groups have already been consulted on changes to the gender recognition act, including Rape Crisis, Women's Aid, the Prison Service, Radical Feminist groups and Shelia Jefferris. That's a lot of consulting.

No.

You're talking about the trans equality inquiry which worked as outlined above. Submitting written evidence to an open consultion is not the same as being consulted! Otherwise a fuckton of us here have 'been consulted' on proposed legal changes to the GRA in Scotland. Anybody can submit evidence, what matters is who the government considers worth listening to.

There was some really alarming written evidence submitted to the trans equality inquiry, including British Association of Gender Identity Specialists and The British Psychological Society (neither are noted radical feminist orgs). You won't find much reference to these alarm signals from frontline professionals in the final report because the government didn't listen to those people. None of them were asked to submit further documents or invited to give oral evidence. After the report was published, Maria Miller dismissed any dissent as coming from 'women purporting to be feminists'.

The people Miller actually consulted for the trans equality report were transactivists:

Action for Trans Health (Jess Bradley)
GIRES (Terry Reed)
[[http://www.transmediawatch.org/about.html Trans Media Watch}} (Helen Belcher)
Mermaids (Susie Green)
Anna Lee (Lancaster University Students’ Union)
Gendered Intelligence(Jay Stewart)
Scottish Transgender Alliance (James Morton)

Also some govt. departments and a few individual trans people. No women's groups were consulted. They were permitted to submit written evidence, as were we all. Most of us didn't realise what was going on though.

3. I don't agree with the premiss, that the comfort of majority groups outweighs the right of inclusion of minorities. I grew up in the 1970s when it was accepted that the straight, white, English people 'owned' society and that the benefits of living in this society were their's to bestow on the rest of us. I didn't like that.

This is what the petition is asking for:

• Respectful and evidence-based discussion about the impact of proposed changes and for women's voices to be heard.

• The government to consult with women’s organisations on how self-declaration would impact on women-only services and spaces, data-gathering, and monitoring of sex-based discrimination.

• The principle of single-sex spaces to be upheld – and where necessary extended.

Which of these do you have a problem with exactly?

WOMEN ARE STAKEHOLDERS IN THIS DEBATE

However 'woke' you think you are, however much you want to be 'on the right side of history', however much you just want to be kind - creating law and policy based on the interests of a tiny group without properly informing and consulting with all major stakeholders will likely result in bad law.

4. I think that there is a tiny but vocal minority on MN who would like to see trans people stripped of all rights, even those who have been living in the acquired gender for years, doing no harm to anyone. I think that these people have deliberately spread fear amount the more moderate members, have misrepresented what the law is at the moment and misrepresented how it might be in the future. I think that they are as happy to use the threat of male violence to make women conform to their views, as any male offender is. I'm a feminist, that pisses me off.

I think you have no clue what's going on on MN but despite that you have decided to come here and play 'divide and conquer' because you are invested in an agenda that has nothing to do with the debate as it's happening on this site.

I've been here since 2010. Back then there were about 4 gender critical posters on the whole site and I wasn't one of them. I've watched this grow. The MN gender critical uprising (for want of a better word) is a homegrown campaign. It's happened because MNHQ don't shut down debate. Ask yourself what's more likely:

1. a sinister group of radical feminists have infiltrated MN and have 'spread fear' amongst all the normal mummies who are incapable of following links or assessing evidence for themselves

2. a huge forum mostly of mothers will understand biology all too well and will also have a strong interest in safeguarding their children's wellbeing

The only people interested in misrepresenting the law are TRAs. It is trans lobby groups that have pushed for self-ID across all sorts of organisations. It is they who have invested so heavily in new 'guidance' and in education programmes.

Here's the GRA and here's the EA. Here are the recommendations from the trans equality report and here is a very straightforward guide to what those recommendations would mean in practice.

5. I'm all for debate and I don't like the way in which women who don't agree with what this petition asks for, are met with outright hostility by some; 'handmaidens', 'pathetic', 'virtue signalling', are not reasonable ways to address other with who don't agree with you.

Please rest assured I don't think you're a 'handmaiden', 'pathetic' or a 'virtue signaller'. I am totally confident that you understand exactly what's going on and exactly what you're doing here.

You're not 'all for debate'. If you were you wouldn't be putting so much effort into smearing women's organisations, some of which started on MN, as well as smearing some individual women.

6. I don't like the insinuation that I, in some way, 'don't understand' becasue I'm not gripped by a moral panic.

We all know you understand. This isn't about you, it's about ensuring ordinary women are properly informed and consulted on laws which are likely to have a huge effect on their safety, privacy and dignity.

It's not about a 'moral panic' either but you know that too. You're just using that language in an attempt to delegitimise our concerns.

7. I don't like the way that those who would like me to sign this petition play fast and loose with the facts. When I point out that Ireland and Canada have self ID and it's fine, they make up things about the British prison system not allocating places in prison on a case by case basis, which simply isn't true and has buggery flip to do with public loos or changing rooms.

Oh come the fuck on!

Over the past few weeks you have spread TOTAL FUD on MN. None of the following are true but you have invited people to believe all of these on various threads:

• All sorts of bad people got a standing ovation at the WNTT event at the houses of parliament
• WPUK and WNTT are two 'wings' of the same organisation and are a bit like the IRA
• Women have been suspended from the labour party for harrassing trans people
• Linda Bellos threatened to beat up trans people
• Sheila Jeffreys wants to ban heterosexual sex
• Maria Mac started it at speakers corner
• Transgendertrend are funded by right wing christians

'playing fast and loose with the facts' indeed!

Some TRAs are making a huge deal out of the prison rules that say a female prisoner can be held in the male estate if she is exceptionally dangerous. Prison instructions for trans prisoners can be downloaded here - scroll down to '17/2016 The Care and Management of Transgender Offenders'.

The prison service go by legal sex, first and foremost. They're not allowed to ask to see a GRC but they can ask for a birth certificate (the sole remaining thing a GRC is good for). If a prisoner has a female birth cert (original or obtained via a GRC) they will be housed in the female estate unless they present an exceptional risk, in which case they may be moved to a men's prison, purely because this is where the facilities are. They will still be housed separately from men and will be accommodated in line with PSI for female prisoners. TW prisoners with a GRC are treated as female in all circumstances.

There is case law directly referenced in the prison rules linked above that says that even if a tw is in prison for attempted rape, if they have a grc and hence a bc that says 'female', they must be sent to a women's prison. The bar is very low as we have seen in various cases that have made mainstream media.

How many women (old fashioned cunty sort) are currently held in the male estate under these rules? I must admit I don't have the stats to hand but I'm willing to bet it's somewhere between 'none' and 'one or two'.

Thank you for taking the time, Pencils !

@PencilsinSpace Thank you. Really really clear. Thanks in particular for the information on the ‘consultation’.

@PencilsinSpace you are my heroine! Thank you.

Nice work Pencils.

Handy Easter Sunday link
petition.parliament.uk/petitions/214118

PencilsInSpace loving your work

I missed this earlier.

There is so much in those posts, Pencils and it is all worth reading. Thank you very much.

do worry about the scandals in Rochdale and Telford and the gender pay gap and internet porn. These are the issues that bother me.

How do you suppose these examples of sex based oppression can be tackled without the ability to talk about sex?

Bloody hell Ereshkigal I don't think it needs spelling out why I've collated that little diatribe of yours.

I posted that because that poster thought fit to sneer and gloat about my concerns (I'd get more signatures on a local petition about bus services) while knowing full well that they are influenced by my being a victim of male violence. So that was nice. But you do your thing Rat.

Ereshkigal I am genuinely extremely sympathetic to what you've been through, and have an incalculable amount of respect for you as a survivor.

Though i can't and I don't watch people give and receive personal digs in public without saying I think that's wrong. You're right, that is my thing.

I couldn't care less what you think, or for your insincere mealy mouthed "sympathy" and sanctimonious pearl clutching.

Okay Ereshkigal, you only care about what that poster you laid into thought. But look, I'm not getting into it beyond what's been said.

I was not sneering or gloating. Merely pointing out that you need to wonder why you haven't got more signatures - and possibly realise that this means that the vast majority of people do not share your concerns. When I find that many other people don't agree with me I tend to questiosn whether my concerns are unfounded.

And as a fellow survivor of rape and violence from a man, I have complete sympathy with you. I blame the man who raped me, and the fact he was brought up to see women as different and lesser than him. I fight to challenge those attitudes. I don't assume everyone born with a penis has those attitides, or feel that segregation on the basis of natal assigned sex will help to get rid of them.

It was sneering, and it was nasty.

"Haha fuck you dear your right to consent to males in your spaces are being taken away and no one cares!" After I had just that second been speaking about being a victim of male violence. Its not the point that you have also been but choose to handwave my feelings and concern away. I'm not playing top trumps. It's not the case that no one agrees. Most people aren't even aware of the issues. One by one we are getting through to people. Lots of people don't sign online petitions particularly about controversial subjects.

And as I said, it's a bit rich pointing and laughing at anything when you support the Lib Dems.