Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Trans unpeak moment

999 replies

Sunflowersforever · 05/04/2018 02:29

Have really been tuned into the whole self-Id issue and subsequent discussions through mumsnet, and appalled at the encroachment into women spaces and the silencing of women's voices. Was so glad to have read Hadley Freeman's article and how she summed up concerns in such an articulate way that reflected my views.

Ok. Here is the unpeak trans bit.

On HFs twitter feed, someone posted about selfid saying. "It means swearing a statutory declaration that you are living as a woman (and there are legal consequences if you lie), changing your name and documents, telling friends, colleagues, family".

Is that correct? If it is, I didn't know that and it changes the whole 'any man can enter a woman's space unchallenged' argument a bit as surely documented proof can be produced if challenged?

Someone else also said Ireland had adopted this law with no consequences? Really?

Anyone aware if any of this is true?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
8
Juells · 06/04/2018 16:17

So sorry to hear what you're going through, AnchorMum

RedToothBrush · 06/04/2018 16:20

Anchor Flowers

The whole thing has utterly destroyed mainly families. I do believe it is a cult.

No one really talks about the experiences of families who I do think offer incite that isn't coming from elsewhere.

It is exceptionally hard to speak out if it does directly affect you.

Popchyk · 06/04/2018 16:24

Oh, Anchor, your post was just so heartfelt.

I just hope you and your child can get through this somehow. I think we are just now beginning to see the scale of the damage that has already been done.

RedToothBrush · 06/04/2018 16:40

What the law SAYS and what the law DOES are two separate things.

When you write new law, and you don't specifically legislate in reference to other laws, you don't necessarily know what the effect of that new law will be on old laws. Sometimes this will be just how the police prioritise the law and where they will decide to take further action, other times it will require a test case. Test cases are in practice, rare.

So unless, when you are re-writing the GRA legislation, you add an amendment which specifically states something like 'exposing genitals which do not correspond to the sex of the space you are in still is considered criminal action' - an exception clause - you can render existing law worthless.

The thing is, in this case, this also won't be done because it could be used maliciously or to discriminate against trans people. So you can't have an exception clause that the trans community won't go nuts at.

And understandably so. It would leave transpeople potential MORE at risk of being criminalised and with less rights in practice than they currently have.

Instead it will be left silent on the matter, because frankly its easier to do for politicians - to ignore the concern and pretend they didn't think about the potential conflict and how it rendered existing law useless in practice.

So yes, it practise even if old laws do exist, whether they can still actually be used and enforced becomes a grey area which no one really wants to address.

And in those situations its the most vulnerable and those with the least power who do end up being in situations where they are most at risk.

Because they are invisible in the process of law making now.

Reliance on legislating for social change is generally a bad idea which tends to be problematic unless there are black and white boundaries to it. Having trans women in womens spaces is very definitely a grey area because there are competing and conflicting interests.

Personally, if this does go through parliament, I would be VERY keen on an amendment of this nature being put forward, even if it does not pass because it would show up some of these politicians for supporting what this actually means in practice.

Do not automatically assume that the existence of a law alone means that the consequences have been fully explored when making new ones. Its the practical effect of one on the other that matters in reality.

CharlieParley · 06/04/2018 16:43

@crispybuttyfan

Your original claim: "It is in fact usually less than cis women."

Doesn't mention transwomen having the same testosterone levels as women. Doesn't mention any specific substance.

Therefore posting the first actual study researching the efficacy of testosterone treatment is entirely valid which shows the only transwomen where testosterone suppressant treatment worked only got within female range is valid. That you don't agree with the researchers (who are established medical professionals in the US with a large number of patients is presumably of no interest to you) is neither here nore there for the purpose of this argument. And I haven't cherry picked a study - it is literally the first longitudinal study looking at the efficacy of the treatment in the US. I am not aware of any other.

Here is a study that refutes your assertions overall [...}

Well, no, it doesn't. It's a literature review which looks at a total of eight studies in total, most of whom consist of qualitative interviews with a tiny sample size about transgender athletes personal experiences participating in sports. That such studies cannot refute claims made by researchers that males have an advantage over females even when they take testosterone suppressants is obvious, because these studies did not measure physiological paramaters of performance but simply asked their subjects questions.

Instead the one study even remotely looking at the physiology (Gooren and Bunck) actually support my point and I quote:

Differentiating not only between those taking cross-sex hormones and not taking cross-sex hormones, but also transgender female individuals taking testosterone blockers, may be necessary when discussing an athletic advantage.

The researchers from this study themselves acknowledge that merely suppressing testosterone is not enough. And that they could not show transwomen do not have an advantage over female competitors "owing to a large muscle mass 1-year post-cross-sex hormones".

The literature review concludes: In summary, there is limited research from which to draw any conclusion about whether transgender people have an athletic advantage in competitive sport or not. Their conclusion is that therefore transwomen should be allowed to compete.

But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Thanks though for posting yet another study for my collection that I can use to illustrate my points.

you are the one claiming there is no variety amongst these groups and it is all cut and dried, and fail to accept your claims such as reach are absolute in the way your portray them.

I claimed no such thing. I stated:

We are talking about averages and entire sex groups, not just particular individuals, precisely because the law change will affect entire sex groups, not just particular individuals.

There is neither denial of variety nor absolutes in there - I am talking of males as a sex group vs females as a sex group. And I even gave you specific examples of small men vs small women and large men vs large women. It's a nonsense of course to pick a particularly huge woman and pit her against a tiny dude and claim this invalidates the fact that men as a group are bigger and stronger than women.

clearly conflating males, with post hrt trans women

I am conflating nothing. Transwomen are male and therefore a subset of men.

But most importantly, as the study you linked me to makes clear, many transgender athletes, particularly the male-born have no interest in cross-sex hormones or even testosterone suppressants if they "wish to use their penis" as the authors put it. Clearly, non-op, non-med transwomen would not lose any advantage over women at all (atm this would exclude them from international sport of course, but possibly not from regional or national events depending on how they are regulated).

Ereshkigal · 06/04/2018 16:44

The offences of Voyeurism and Exposure are both drafted in gender neutral terms, so a legal change of gender does not prevent these offences occurring.

This is extremely disingenuous. Women who are forced to see a penis against their consent in a female space are suffering indecent exposure. It matters not in the slightest to her whether that man thinks he is a woman.

CharlieParley · 06/04/2018 16:44

^at a total of eight studies in detail

Ereshkigal · 06/04/2018 16:47

So unless, when you are re-writing the GRA legislation, you add an amendment which specifically states something like 'exposing genitals which do not correspond to the sex of the space you are in still is considered criminal action' - an exception clause - you can render existing law worthless.

YY exactly.

OlennasWimple · 06/04/2018 16:50

Flowers AnchorMum

I'm fed up of the whole "well, the law will make that activity a crime, so you can complain to the police about it" argument. I want to stop crimes happening in the first place, in a proportionate and balanced way. Not tell women that the existing inadequate criminal justice system will be there when things go horribly wrong for them

user1487175389 · 06/04/2018 16:52

The reality is that organisations and individuals are not going to want to risk being prosecuted for a hate crime by challenging any man who says he's trans. Just in case.

It's already happening - did you see the older woman on twitter who was thrown to the wolves for complaining about a naked man with an election harrasing her in a changing room? Yeah, apparently her not liking that was a hate crime. Angry

Ereshkigal · 06/04/2018 16:52

Please could we hear about how the law will deal with indecent exposure by males self declaring as women in female spaces.

Debbie6666 · 06/04/2018 16:53

@OlennasWimple

I wouldn't challenge a Travis Alabanza type but would probably go and speak to management about it. And that's where things start to get tricky, as in the future potentially I could be charged with some kind of hate crime for mis-gendering

Exactly on what grounds would you be charged with a hate crime?

To do so you would first have to commit a crime such as harassment or assault and that would have to be motivated by hate for the protected characteristic of gender reassignment and serious enough for the police to charge you.

So reporting someone to management is no more a hate crime than reporting the old bloke who walked into the wrong toilet. Taking matters into your own hands to physically remove someone or start abusing them or if your repeatedly reporting the same person after being told they have a right and are welcome there, only then could it land you in trouble, and rightly so as vigilante justice is not a thing we welcome in the UK.

But most certainly, a one off report of someone seeming out of place would not see you being charged with a hate crime.

user1487175389 · 06/04/2018 16:54

erection, obviously.

Ereshkigal · 06/04/2018 16:54

It's already happening - did you see the older woman on twitter who was thrown to the wolves for complaining about a naked man with an election harrasing her in a changing room? Yeah, apparently her not liking that was a hate crime.

There was also the 11 year old girl who was subjected to a trans identified boy masturbating in front of her. Stella Creasy gave some Orwellian platitudes.

Ereshkigal · 06/04/2018 16:56

And the female prisoners forced to shower with a male.

user1487175389 · 06/04/2018 16:56

Not so, Debbie - simply referring to a male adult human being as a man is classed as 'misgendering' - and that already falls under hate crime in the UK as far as I'm aware. Or if it doesn't, the police have been briefed by Mermaids to record it as though it does.

Ereshkigal · 06/04/2018 16:57

To do so you would first have to commit a crime such as harassment or assault and that would have to be motivated by hate for the protected characteristic of gender reassignment and serious enough for the police to charge you.

And potentially that harassment could be identifying a man as a man.

Ereshkigal · 06/04/2018 17:01

The original law was a work around to help people suffering discrimination and e.g. not able to marry somebody of the same sex.
^It never got to grips with the fact that you can’t change sex.
^
Self ID just takes flawed legislation and makes it worse.

Exactly this. I'm more than happy to drag this out into the open and discuss how women's rights are being eroded across the board. I'm also glad the OP started this thread.

Ereshkigal · 06/04/2018 17:03

This is untrue. Allowing men into women's change rooms does effectively nullify voyeurism and exposure as crimes in those spaces. It means a man can go in there, expose his penis to women and little girls, and watch them undressing, and no one will be able to do anything about it. Because as a self-declared 'woman' he has every right to be in there while they undress, and to be naked himself.

Yes. Anyone who disagrees with this, needs to say why. Because to me it is obvious.

Ereshkigal · 06/04/2018 17:06

Who's going to do all this challenging, then? I don't know any woman who'd challenge a man in the Ladies. You'd get your teeth knocked out for your pains.

As a woman in the states already did. Don't worry the TRAs are perfectly aware of how female socialisation works, even though they claim it doesn't exist.

Debbie6666 · 06/04/2018 17:09

user1487175389

I think you will find the basis for that investigations was old school harassment motivated by hate. Misgendering is not a crime in its own right.

OlennasWimple · 06/04/2018 17:09

Debbie6666 - look at NYC and California for examples of laws that make misgendering a potential criminal offence

Phelina · 06/04/2018 17:17

Intend to live as a woman ????????

Sums up the whole ridiculousness of the self ID debate. WTF does it mean to live as a woman I mean if owning a vagina is not required, please somebody tell what I need to do to live as a woman. lol

What are the benchmarks of living as a woman then, other than owning a vagina I mean?

That self ID nonsense is the most wanly policy proposal I have ever heard of. Bonkers.

Phelina · 06/04/2018 17:20

  • wanky policy proposal

no pun intended btw Sad

user1487175389 · 06/04/2018 17:22

It doesn't have to be a 'crime in its own right' Debbie, that's not how the law works. It falls under the blanket of hate crime and is open to interpretation by CPS

Swipe left for the next trending thread