I have Peaktransed

[Chickenagain]

God knows I am accepting, tolerant and open-minded, but if this is our future www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/outrage-transgender-prisoner-living-woman-12022675 then I am truly afraid.

I have known various people who now identify as women and vice versa and the vast, vast majority have no intention of behaving in any way to draw unwanted attention to themselves or to upset the status quo.

IMVHO there seems to be two evolving types - the totally self obsessed delusional - realised that being LBG was now no more unusual than having blonde hair - being gay no longer warranted being a protected characteristic in the UK - and wanted more. Wanted to be special, wanted to be the Only Trans in the Village - the attention screaming Loooook at MEEEEEEEEEE..

And there are others abusing the 'white female privilege (confused)' who will no doubt resort to their birth gender when no longer a trans athlete/offender/rapist/activist, the upkeep of being an invisible female over the age of 60 becomes too onerous and our gender has served its purpose.

I just wish women would wake up (angry).

And fwiw as irritated as I've often gotten with JayCee I do agree that we're looking at at the very least two different "types" here, and it's very clear that it's the expansion of the trans umbrella to include people who'd never have been allowed to go through medically supervised transition until maybe 10 years ago and people who have no intention of even attempting any medical changes that's caused the explosion of absurd bullshit that we're currently dealing with. There's a reason those people are so vocal about gatekeeping - the old system was designed to filter them out.

"The government could intervene and remind"

But these aren't just cases of private companies preparing for a change of law. Under the current system, TIM found guilty of having photos of extreme child sex abuse don't get treatment because they declare that they are not men, volient TIM are allowed in female prisons. It isn't just private companies - it's the legal establishment. The current system put women and children in danger.

Hulo. I watched that video and as you might expect agree 100% as my recent posts will show since I say most of the same things in them.

Which is not difficult, because if you are transsexual, as she pretty obviously is, and have been there you have to see the sense of this perspective. It would be good for someone to invite her onto Mumsnet and join the discussion with you as sane voices like that are needed.

It is heartening to see a clear headed young and recently transitioned person thinking this way. It is far more likely she will be listened to by other young trans people than an old biddy like me. Though it will not stop me trying on places such as Digital Spy when threads appear. As they do in response to media stories as it is a media site.

I am not signed onto You Tube but I will see if I can to post support for her there.

As she says, and I have, the GRA of 2004 largely works. Any problems with it come from the more recent Equality Act that redefined some of the parameters and introduced some confusion into the exceptions for safe spaces originally written into the GRA.

She points out that most day to day documents can be changed without it. Which is 100% true. My school certificates were voluntarily changed 40 years ago by the same education board that made me stop teacher trainer as in the early 70s they felt no parents or children could yet handle a trans teacher, as I reluctantly accepted as I understood the arguments.

I also had an F marker on my passport as soon as the new style ones were first introduced in the mid 90s - so ten years prior to the GRA existing. In practical terms it is true that a GRC is primarily of use if you are in trouble as it guarantees legal status in terms of prison whereas without one these things are decided case by case at the point of action. But I doubt many of the 6000 with a GRC have ever had need of it in that situation. I don't recall reading a case involving prisoners where someone has a GRC. The issues usually arise over the majority of trans people who don't. The other 594,000. Which by sheer statistics alone is hardly surprising.

I lived 31 years post transition without one and whilst there were a couple of instances where having one would have made me act differently (which I will not go into to uncover that can of worms again) in day to day purposes it is filed in a drawer and I have not even looked at it in over 10 years. And only used my amended birth certificate once to get my bus pass as proof of age was needed.

Angry kittens, I am never offended by disagreement from you or others. And, in fact, we agree on far more than we don't I suspect.

If you got irritated by some of my replies in other threads, I am sorry and apologise.

But not for posting whatever it was as I only ever try to say what I think and it upsets some other trans people as much as some of you what I think.

I listen to them as I listen to you but I make up my own mind and do not follow and trend or dogma. If it is sense I will say so.

If it isn't, like removing all the necessary checks and balances around the GRA, then I will say that too even if I do get called a traitor like Rose says she does.

This is a major change some transgender people are asking for. If not to agree with them is treachery they are in the wrong here. This has to be very much decided to at least as much as by trans people as by all the others clearly effected. Especially women.

There is no argument otherwise apart from self centred thinking.

It's interesting, isn't it. The focus we have organised around - reform of the GRA and self ID, is not in fact the problem. It's the way particular people are behaving, with the support of the authorities, which has unsettled a working system. Supporting our children, supporting transsexuals, and safeguarding, all seems to be secondary to making a small noisy group of people feel happy. And I suspect they never will because they will need to keep finding validation in more and more extreme ways.

I agree that GRA works wonderfully for TIM. There has been countless posts where TIM give us examples of how it benefits them. But it's naive to pretend that the GRA does not negatively impact women and girls.

Can you give some examples where it has LostArt. Would certainly like to know the areas of concern.

The fact that we have lost sex segregated spaces. Surely you can understand the implications of that?

I see a GRC as largely there if ever needed and it likely hardly ever is.

Day to day life in the 31 years prior to having a GRC versus the 14 since with one have been not much different that I can think of. Especially as 2004 was when I became house bound as a full time carer and so I was not out and about doing things, travelling the world or visible to anything like the degree I was in the years when I had no GRC.

I regard it now I suppose more as an insurance policy more necessary when we are not talking a few thousand largely invisible people interacting with the world but hundreds of thousands making sounds and noises and the whole debate is making being trans a visible cause in a way it never was before.

So its a kind of self preservation instinct I suppose. Selfish to a degree, of course. Because things have changed, the world is noticeably more hostile and when you are not trying to change it you suddenly feel more vulnerable than you did when nobody was really interested or aware of what transsexuals were.

. That's your response?

You ask, apparently innocently, how GRA impacts on women and girls. I tell you, and you respond by repeating how useful it is to you?

Lost Art, I understand what you mean - but in what way have you lost sex segregated spaces because of the GRA.

I would imagine most of the fully transitioned transsexuals in the 6000 or so who have a GRC because of the act were using toilets and changing rooms before exactly like they were afterwards.

So it did not practically change that reality or increase the numbers as only those people appear to be interested in getting access to a GRC.

The rest only want to do so IF we remove all the safeguards.

Whilst I entirely agree that we should not be broadening the scope of access without reasonable gatekeeping, in reality whichever of those disenfranchised hundreds of thousands choose to enter safe sex spaces are likely to do so with or without a GRC I would imagine.

Any encouragement given to them seems to be via the Equality Act that has confused the picture as to whether as GRC provides any right of access to the non excluded spaces to anyone without one simply on the premise that that act uses different words than the GRA.

There was a thread on here the other week discussing the law via both acts trying to establish how a GRC effected anything. There were differing opinions but test cases were cited that suggested the GRC provided some protection not in the equality act but that both contained some single sex exceptions.

So I would take that as meaning the real problems are:

1: The Equality Act rewriting definitions and that the role of the GRA within it possibly needs clarifying and/or tightening.

2: The mooted changes to the GRA that would significantly alter the numbers who are challenging these spaces and the range and degree of transition, if any, they will possess. Not to mention their mental stability to access those spaces if you remove that from even being evaluated.

If the above is done we are left with two options. A GRA that continues much as now or abolishing the GRA.

The debate then is whether safe spaces are more protected with a GRA than without.

Either way it will not stop them from your perspective being invaded to some degree I imagine.

Plus my guess is if you try to repeal the GRA and take us back to 2004 but also say enforce toilets and changing rooms around biology only (as in XX/XY) that is not literally enforceable, of course, so will in reality be done by way of perceptions.

If women are now more sensitive to appearance that will result in cases of XX women mistaken as being trans women who will get challenged, and passing XY men who are challenging the removal of access and who might have ulterior designs getting in.

If you segregate entirely this way I think the main problem will be the ones who will follow the law and go elsewhere will be the honest trans people who do not want to upset anyone, possibly putting themselves at risk by doing so. And the ones who will deliberately challenge the exclusion will be the very ones you are hoping to exclude - probably fired up by the exclusion to test it for the publicity or to hope they get attacked and use that to further division.

So I am not sure how repealing the GRA would help any more, and possibly even less, than stopping it from being broadened in the ways being suggested.

LostArt, I deliberately split my very long reply into two parts as so many on here complain I write too much. Not unreasonably.

But the first time I write in two parts you leap in and suggest I am only answering it from my perspective, when I already had in the second part.

Anyhow, next time I will stick to posting any reply all together - however long - so as not to create misunderstandings.

LostArt, with respect, you always seem to be looking for ulterior motives in anything I say. There aren't any. I am just telling you what I think.

I asked HOW the GRA impacts on lost sex segregated spaces. But you say you told me, but you haven't. As you are arguing that the GRA lost those spaces, when it didn't. It probably legalised them for 6000 people, that's about all it did. Otherwise, as I explained in my first part your perceived loss for those 6000 people had happened long before then by mutual agreement of you leave us alone if we do you.

Where the problem is turning that long existing consent into a much broader remit under the law. Which we both agree is very wrong.

I guess a question I should ask you, LostArt. is what sex segregated spaces you mean exactly.

I have already made clear I agree entirely on the retention of the exceptions to the GRA such as smear tests and refuges. Where such restrictions are perfectly fair.

Also that in situations such as schools or trips where non physically transitioned children are sharing spaces that they should be accommodated in what I guess you would term third space - as in here where teachers go.

So my question is are you talking toilets and changing rooms in the same context as sex segregated that you feel should be also exempt?

Plus my guess is if you try to repeal the GRA and take us back to 2004 but also say enforce toilets and changing rooms around biology only (as in XX/XY) that is not literally enforceable, of course, so will in reality be done by way of perceptions.

If women are now more sensitive to appearance that will result in cases of XX women mistaken as being trans women who will get challenged, and passing XY men who are challenging the removal of access and who might have ulterior designs getting in.

I am not so convinced that enforcing same-sex provision is/would be that difficult. What is needed is a definition of what comprises 'male-bodied' and 'female-bodied'. Then, anyone who is male- bodied, knowingly entering a provision for female-bodied people would be breaking the law and could be prosecuted (and vice-versa for spaces for male-bodied people). I actually think that a third space should also be provided for those for whom using such spaces would deny them dignity and privacy (e.g. some trans people).
If this were the case, people would have a responsibility to uphold the law by using only those provisions they are entitled to. Organisations would have responsibility to take reasonable steps to make sure the spaces were used correctly. The key thing is that it would be very clear who is entitled to use which provision.

Jaycee, I genuinely haven't the time to read your very long posts. But how on earth can we have female sex segregated anything when males can use them?

I'll repeat myself, there are males in female prisons and hospital wards. Now. Under the current legislation. This has nothing to do with proposed self id. It's happening now.

TIM are not getting treatment for their part in sexual abuse of children, because such programs are not available for women. Can you not see how that is a danger?

Jaycee on school trips even the most 'radical' of policies suggest trans students should have the choice to share with those of the sex they identify with or to have a room of their own. Many trans children would find it humiliating changing in front of others.

I think that same-sex provision is a no-brainer when it related to our sexed-bodies being involved or biological functions that are specific to a single-sex. I haven't seen any evidence that there is an appetite in society for mixed sex provision in these circumstances.

It make no sense allowing a person with a male-sexed body into a space designated for people with female-sexed bodies because of of their gender identity. The provision is about sex-bodies not gender

There may be mileage in the male bodied/female bodied basis of segregation. But - aside from arguments over how that is defined - it will always come down to trust and perception.

You are not going to be able to realistically test or judge access to toilets or changing rooms or no access to them on any other basis.

Even if you create a third space it will still come down to which trans people choose to use them or continue doing what they do now regardless of laws.

That is the problem. If you legislate exclusions what always happens is notice is taken by the good natured people not looking for trouble and taken as a challenge by anyone looking for trouble.

So you do not significantly alter the position as now, because any person challenging a law will be liable to being guilty of a crime.

Then or now.

But the bad intentioned are rarely deterred just because it is made illegal.

That is the problem. If you legislate exclusions what always happens is notice is taken by the good natured people not looking for trouble and taken as a challenge by anyone looking for trouble.

But arguably it would reduce the number who would be willing to risk the challenge if ignoring exclusions had consequences. And we would have recourse to authority to support us, not them.

what baffles me about this is that the fitness competition is the subject....!!!

Eddie Izzard seems to be peaktransing transwomen.

twitter.com/notCursedE/status/981556252852604928

I am not opposed at all to exclusions or laws to protect them, provided they work .

Mouthtrousersafrocknowandthen, I thought this tweet summed it up.

The correct response from Labour ought to have been silence. That Izzard wears women’s clothing and makeup has been established for decades, no one who matters cares. But the cynical me says, “Why pass on the opportunity to accusing your enemies of serious social crimes?”

And I've explained two advantages I see to having exemptions for intimate sex protected spaces.

The in some ways competing interpretations of the GRA and Equality Act need addressing and a clear set of interpretations as to exclusions and application of these drawn up.

There was a thread where that was examined a week or so ago involving some legal experts. They seemed to reach slightly different views of what emerged from tested case law (there have been a couple of instances apparently). Partly due to the changing of terms between the two acts.

But even without any new legislation I would have thought it reasonable to press government to look at these two laws as standing and give a published interpretation on the grounds of sex segregated space exemptions, which apply and in what way having a GRC does, or does not, effect those exemptions.

That way if published all the pre-emptive application of self ID that is happening out of fear of being challenged would at least have clarification that could be used to direct decisions as opposed to guesswork.

Cannot see how anyone could object to simply getting an easy to follow understanding of where we stand now.