Gender identity changes reality bafflement.

[Jog22]

I copied this to Facebook, it's very clear. Why do only 3 people respond ? I mean I've only got 65 friends as never been a fan of faceache as it made me paranoid but still, they're intelligent people and I'm not even getting abuse. Ahhhh

m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=322300644846752&id=203074990102652

Morningrunner being transgender will mean absolutely nothing other than a declaration that one is transgender. So yes, gender identity will absolutely become a protected characteristic. There is no test or evidence required for a person to be deemed transgender.
You say the question is how to ensure robust protection for single sex spaces and women’s sport. That will be IMPOSSIBLE. There will be no protection. Gender identity will be paramount.

Jog Savannah Burton is Canadian.

I agree the article you posted is far too long and sense for Facebook. Transgender activists have mastered the sound bite - answering in long, dense tracts won't convince or even keep the interest of people scrolling through a Facebook newsfeed.

Gender reassignment is the current protection, for which there are criteria. Gender identity is the proposed characteristic, for which there will be no criteria.

Frankly, in terms of cultural acceptance, it's a done deal. Men identifying as women are accessing women's spaces already.

If they changed the wording, but kept the criteria, that would be a different thing. You'd still have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria.

This way you don't. Anyone can identify, irrespective of motivation. And there's nothing you can say, because it's protected.

Frankly it wouldn't matter what anyone's motivation might be for getting a GRC; they are STILL would not getting into your changing room.

So, how would you ensure that single sex service is protected? A GRC means that any documentation can be changed to show the opposite sex.

How does a GRC protect trans rights? I really don't understand this. We could have trans as a protected characteristic without GRCs.

After all, to use your comparison morning, you don't need a certificate from the government to be protected for a religious belief.

So what is the point of a GRC?

Can you not just accept that some or even many of your Facebook friends simply don't agree with your post? If I saw that on my friends page I'd not get into it with you. We have totally opposing views, and for the sake of respecting other people's thoughts on things I would never make a pointed comment back to you on Facebook.

GRCs lead to conflation of sex and gender. If trans were the protected characteristic GRCs would be unnecessary.

I agree if they beefed up the conditions and made it crystal clear that this is not a pass, that would work. But I have zero confidence that they will do any of that. They don't understand the implications already.

And make no mistake, the trans lobby will take this as far as they can. The goal is to make men and women indistinguishable in terms of access to previously ring fenced issues based on sex segregation. Otherwise women wouldn't care.

Transwomen are already competing in female sport, already getting transferred to female prisons. Already claiming to represent feminism. Schools and institutions are already allowing men into women's changing rooms. Criminal reporting is already done on the basis of gender identity, rather than sex. No one is taking the slightest notice of the current criteria.

The government had legal advice at the time of the transgender enquiry that on current thinking it would be hard to justify retaining any sex segregation at all so the exemption would not be used in practice. Even with the stated example of a rape counselling service.

morningrunner

So are you saying the approach to discuss proportionate means and exemptions?

(Sorry, my wifi is shiiiit and losing half my comments).

Because, in theory, I agree. But in practice it doesn't have much of an impact in terms of public opinion.

And it takes the wind out the sails of anyone who dismisses women who are raising these concerns as bigots.

I understand your train of thought, I just disagree that this still won't happen.

I've seen numerous arguments underpinned by this very thing. To no avail.

Because the aim isn't to have protected status, the aim is to be completely accepted as women, partly for validation but now, more recently, because women are a target.

I think it should be "transgender status" rather than "gender identity". Gender identity is too woolly and includes all the special snowflakes.

I think you have a good tactic morningrunner - I think it could work.

My pessimism kicks in though, when I think about things like PAT testing - a system that was supposed to encourage people to think about the equipment they were using, and perform simple, sensible checks for themselves, but instead became this weird outsourced behemoth of stickers allegedly certifying the 'safety' of the office kettle - and the health and safety executive chasing after it yelling 'BUT THAT ISN'T WHAT WE MEANT! THIS IS NO SAFER AT ALL!!!' whilst I'm banned from using my brand new laptop cable because it doesn't have a dated sticker on it.