LGBT trade unionists and allies statement on the GRA

[PencilsInSpace]

In the Morning Star.

We believe that fears about cis gender men abusing the system in order to access women-only spaces, suggests that they think that cis women can’t also be predators or abusers.

We are concerned that attempts raise parallels between trans women and potential sex offenders are eerily like echoes from the 1970s rhetoric of “gay men are all paedophiles.” We believe cis gender women don’t get a free pass to abuse people just because they have XX chromosomes.

'Women do it tooooo' - Fuck off!

We believe that concerns around trans men and women in sports are unfounded since those organisations already have their own regulations in place.

And there are already male people winning women's sporting events because they have anatomical and physiological advantages over women. Fuck sake!

We believe the Gender Recognition Act reform will have no impact on statistics of male violence or any other sex-based statistics, because they will be recorded in the gender they identified as at the time of the crime.

Aaaargh!

I was feeling quite cheerful this morning until I came across this gaslighty bullshit

My "whizzing" comment wasn't about lack of comprehension/understanding. I meant that the bill may end up getting passed in its revised state whilst people sit and squabble about it.

It was definitely a devil's advocate comment but what I'm saying is that if the public are going to side with trans people then maybe it would be better to try and ensure that just genuine trans people are allowed into women's spaces rather than literally any bloke who says "I identify as a woman".

What the fuck is a genuine trans person? How would you know the difference?

Stig that's what we have now. Gender Recognition Certificates with a process to go through.

If you look around the site you'll find we're not just 'squabbling' (interesting choice of word.) . You'll find a lot of people writing to MPs, writing articles, examining statistics, sharing articles and research, and just patiently explaining this over and over again so the other side of the debate is heard too.

I meant that the bill may end up getting passed in its revised state whilst people sit and squabble about it.

Yes I know what you meant and that's what I responded to when I said 'We're on the ball'. You however are not.

what I'm saying is that if the public are going to side with trans people then maybe it would be better to try and ensure that just genuine trans people are allowed into women's spaces rather than literally any bloke who says "I identify as a woman".

Yes that would be lovely and I look forward to seeing your proposals.

Here's the current text of the GRA

Here's the govt. proposal for amending the GRA

Here's Miller's report which contains further details of what they want this bill to do and other bills they might introduce in the future

Here's how much attention was paid to women when consulting for that report

Here's the Scottish consultation on GRA

Here's the equality act which interacts with the GRA in very important ways

Here's a very straightforward explanation of the main legal issues

Here's (some of) what's happing on the ground

Please do come back when you can show your workings. Thank you so much for sorting this out for us.

Genuinely thought transpoodles was a new thing.

Ok, I apologise if that came across a bit goady.

However, I don't think the general public are buying into the 'men in dresses' stuff I hear so frequently on here. I just don't think you're going to easily convince them that a post-op transwoman in a dress is better off getting changed around the men's rugby team than in a women's changing room.

I know that not everybody is arguing this, but it's quite clear from a lot of the threads on here that a lot of people don't want any trans people in women's spaces at all and I don't think there's much chance that will ever come to fruition.

The bill is going to be passed, not because women are 'squabbling' but because we have no representation in Parliament.
And because the people who support the GRA either dont have a clue or dont care how it will actually work in practice.

Race, religion and sex are all protected characteristics; which are wiped out by the GRA.

Most people you call themselves Transwomen still have a penis and balls and have no reconstructive surgery planned, yet they are supposed to be legally "the same as" biological women.

I just don't think you're going to easily convince them that a post-op transwoman in a dress is better off getting changed around the men's rugby team than in a women's changing room.

What you appear not to realise Stig is that there are very few post op transwomen. Dresses or otherwise. Most of these males have all the equipment they were born with.

A lot of NUT individual members. No NUT branches
A few public sector members. No public sector branches
A very small trades council individual member but no Trades councils.
One confused person who didn't do a very good job when in post imo.
Assorted Momentum peeps.

The big unions are NOT there in any collective capacity whatsoever.
What is significant is who is NOT listed on it.
All smoke and mirrors.
Just a bunch of misinformed or mischievous randoms,
QED
Don't panic Captain Mainwaring [wink}

^( The Morning Star list that is...)

post-op transwoman

A rare beast indeed. Did you even read the thread? This is about men with cock and balls intact. You know, those people that are literally the opposite to women. Who feel so fabulous because they pop a bit of lippy on and swoosh their hair about whilst posing sticking dildos up their arses., cock and balls very much in shot.

Think i am joking? Nope.

Traffig I was going to make exactly your point. These people are not signing as representatives of their unions, just as individuals. The morning star is heavily supported by trade unions and its editorial line has been pretty good about trans stuff. That’s why these people have written in about it.

I wouldn’t write off trade unions on the basis of one stupid letter signed by a few transwomen, odd balls and well-meaning idiots.

Stig transwomen (known previously as transsexuals, many still prefer that name, mostly who held GRCs) have been quietly using women's facilities and bathrooms for years without it being the faintest issue. Miranda Yardley is one of the most eloquent and leading voices from this community who was one of the speakers recently at a meeting with MPs to explain why self identity is a really bad idea.

If self identity goes through then there will be absolutely nothing to stop any man walking anywhere he likes.

This is about the right of biological women to retain some spaces for vulnerable situations where their privacy and dignity means that biological men cannot be present. And the right of biological women to assemble outside of the presence of men, that is a massive, massive right being smashed in the name of 'progress'.

There is absolutely a necessity for transgender safe spaces in the same way there is a necessity for some women safe spaces, because of the threats, harassment and need for privacy. In particular trans prison units, and access to changing rooms and bathrooms that mean not running the gauntlet of biological men. There's unique need around medical care and hospital provision.

The issue here is that the answer is not that women's spaces and provisions in places where they are vulnerable must be opened up to any man who chooses to be there. There is a need to meet but this is not the only way to meet it, and the price of this particular solution is too great.

And this is tied up with a whole lot of other issues and politics which can be summarised as 'subjective emotion should take priority over objective fact', and how many legal doors and loop holes will be opened by a piece of rushed through, highly biased and very poor legislation. Once we start legislating on feelings and beliefs then legislation then means nothing. If beliefs matter over fact then why not legislate that we must all believe in God and must say we do, no matter what we think on the subject? Where does freedom of thought come in? What is reality anyway if not based on provable, objective fact? There are much, much bigger issues at play here.

The issue here is that the answer is not that women's spaces and provisions in places where they are vulnerable must be opened up to any man who chooses to be there. There is a need to meet but this is not the only way to meet it, and the price of this particular solution is too great.

Very well said.

I was just wondering if we have to restrict laws to "objective fact" does that also mean we have to strip out all the religious protections?

Which religious protections would you like to retain?

Most people you call themselves Transwomen still have a penis and balls and have no reconstructive surgery planned, yet they are supposed to be legally "the same as" biological women.

This is why we really mustn't use the word 'transwoman'. It implies that there is some objectively definable class of person called 'transwomen' but there really isn't. A transwoman is literally any man who identifies as such. But when people hear the word 'transwoman', they automatically think of transsexuals. Most self-identified 'transwomen' are not transsexuals - they are men who are indistinguishable from other men apart from a preference for dressing in a feminine manner (and sometimes not even that).

Thus the word 'transwoman' obscures the real issue, which is that there are no sex-based protections for women if we are not permitted to distinguish ourselves legally and ontologically from men. The term 'trans rights' itself does the same thing, of course. That's why the letter finishes with a declaration that women's rights and trans rights are not in conflict, and the signatories no doubt sincerely believe this.

The term 'trans rights' hides the fact that it is men's rights that we are talking about here. Men's right to enter women's private spaces, women's prisons and refuges, to take women's places in business and political representation, participate in and dominate women's sport, all on the basis of a self-declared 'woman feeling' in their heads. Of course that agenda is bloody well in conflict with women's rights!

@MothQuandary
Spot on with analysis re Morning Star.
LGBT Labour have already had an unsuccessful pop at an FBU National Officer for expressing views on Twitter about the nonsense in the proposed GRA.

He is still very much in post. The LGBT section of the FBU have not attempted to have him disciplined.
Neither has the Womens Section.

{Although there is a Fire Service ( as in employer not union) version of LM (from Hampshire) who seems to not be getting very far apart from running some kind of non union fire service group.)

My money's on the FBU to get it right.

And what is the position on transmen (or are they being ignored as per)? Because surely if all this is set in stone; transmen are transmen. Then they are forced to go into the male estate, being men, which I imagine is much more dangerous for them than the alternative.

I think what will actually happen is all women, transmen, transwomen, gender fluid, gay and scared of male violence and voyeurs, rapists and general arseholes are in female space while male space is a couple of straight, heteronormative types wondering why the queue is so long for the ladies. I kid of course. They won't even notice how long the queue is.

The point about laws on religious tolerance is that they are based on the freedom of individuals to practise their religion without fear of discrimination or persecution, not for any supposed right to impose their religious beliefs on others.

So - wear a niqab if you want to, but be prepared to take it off in the very few circumstances where it matters to others (eg being identified as you and not an imposter in a court of law). Train as a pharmacist if you're opposed to abortion but carry out your legal obligation to refer on to the nearest pharmacy which will prescribe the morning after pill if a woman asks for it. Recite the credo of your religion but don't expect to be able to force others to recite it. Tell your children about Noah's Ark and tell them God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh if you want, but don't impose the teaching of creationism in public schools. And tell your children what you want - in a free society they'll be exposed to other views. But don't mutilate their bodies because of your beliefs (we outlaw fgm, children of Jehovah's Witnesses can be made wards of court if they need blood transfusions).

I think that's actually a very good model for trans rights. Be able to dress and call yourself what you like without fear of discrimination or persecution. Train as a nurse - but if you end up working as a practice nurse be prepared to refer on to a female nurse if a woman wants one for a smear (and have the practice ask at the time of booking the appointment, just as practices should make it clear at the time of registering that their doctors will not refer for abortions). Say where ever you want (free speech and all) "trans women are women" but don't expect everyone else to chant it along with you on pain of losing their jobs if they don't. Don't go into schools trying to distort the teaching of biology for your political aims. Don't subject your children to drugs with severe and possibly irreversible side effects and allow them to engage in damaging practices like breast binding (and do not take them abroad for under age genital surgery).

Stig - if you took a poll of the women contributing here, I'd bet my last pound that a majority would support GRCs being available to post-SRS trans people. It's self-ID that is exercising everyone.

We believe that fears about cis gender men abusing the system in order to access women-only spaces, suggests that they think that cis women can’t also be predators or abusers.

Oh honestly

Yes, women can be predators or abusers. But its nearly always men. Why are people willing to ignore this fact? Its ridiculous.

Just to say I agree with Traffig and MothQuandry. These are a few individuals. None of them speak for the unions or for other union members. I know that there are lots of people in my union branch who are gender critical.

It actually really makes me that these people are claiming to speak on behalf of the trade union movement.

@WhereAreWeNow
Thanks for the contribution, makes me feel not so isolated in what I see.
It makes me also that these people are claiming to speak on behalf of the trades unions.

However, any genuine grass roots activist can immediately see these people for what they are: a bunch of odds and sods, with "milk monitor individual capacity" after their, mostly, unremarkable names.
A rambling rant of misinformed individuals trying to big themselves up.
The Prison Officers Association have recognised the threats posed to women prisoners in the likes of Styal. They, (POA) doubtless, will be talking to NAPO. The Public Sector unions, likewise, will be discussing internally to get a collective and balanced response.
In turn, the collective views of LGBTQ trades union sections, and the Womens sections will be in the TUC response to the consultation.

Thankfully, unlike the Labour Party , most of the Womens Trade Union sections have sensible rules which allow women members ONLY to vote on their own representatives and collective views.
ASLEF, I am aware, has a few member officials who have transitioned and who are excellent trade union representatives for ALL staff.
If I saw X Branch ASLEF or Region on the Morning Star list I would be shocked. They are not there.

My own view is that: those worrying proposed amendments to the GRA are so badly drafted that they will not survive the consultation process.

However, the actions of those hired hands and hangers on intent on busting up the Labour Movement may well do enough damage with entryism and so forth to stop a lot of people from voting in a General election. Job done.

But then you will know this also,
In sisterhood.