T

[DonnaBe]

Mumsnet has been invaded by a small group of people who are giving out wrong information about the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act.

They claim that women’s spaces are being invaded and women are being silenced. Please read this and make up your own minds!

A gender Self ID law – like the one proposed in the UK - was recently introduced in Ireland. To change your gender on government records, you need to sign a Statutory Declaration in front of a solicitor and declare that you are living in your acquired gender and intend to stay that way. This is a legal document.

Self ID has not caused problems in Ireland. This is the kind of thing that is being proposed in the UK. It's about making a statement under oath about your acquired gender.

It has been claimed that anyone will be able to claim to be the opposite gender whenever they want. Not true. Nobody is proposing that big blokes with beards can say “I am a woman today” and have legal protection to use women’s loos. If they were, I would be campaigning against it. That is absolutely not what is being proposed

The group behind this campaign are not new. They have been conducting anti-trans campaigns for many years. I don’t think their agenda is women’s welfare so much as expressing their hatred for trans people. The self id proposals have given them an opportunity to attack trans people. Again. They claim they are being silenced, but their views are regularly aired on TV and in the newspapers. And on Mumsnet. They have a right to speak, but I wish they’d tell the truth.

Believe it or not, this all starts with a discussion about marriage. Before 2004, trans people could not marry or stay married because there was no legal way to change the gender on their birth certificates. There was no same sex marriage back then.

The Gender Recognition Act of 2004 introduced the ability to stand in front of a Gender Recognition Panel (cost £140) and get a Gender Recognition Certificate which allowed you to change your birth certificate and get married! This is a bureaucratic arrangement that involves an element of body policing which is not nice.

The proposal now is to replace the GRP / GRC arrangement with a legally binding statutory declaration. Or something like that. That’s all. No whimsical notions like “It’s Friday. I’m a woman today.”

In fact, you can now get married if your transgendered under same sex marriage legislation. So getting a GRC is less relevant. I don’t know if there’s any research on this, but my feeling is most trans people don’t bother getting a GRC anyway.

So this is how things stand today:

There is no law banning men from women’s toilets and changing rooms. There’s only an unwritten rule. The recent Man Friday campaign where women invaded men’s toilets could have the contradictory effect of weakening this rule and end up harming women. The logical conclusion of their campaign is body policing with guards on women’s toilets and women will have to prove their gender before having a pee.

Trans women already use women’s toilets and changing rooms. I do. Nobody notices. I don’t make a song and dance about it. There is no slackening of the law defending women’s spaces because there is no such law. We get on fine without it.

The Gender Recognition Act makes exceptions for things like women’s refuges. These exceptions should be used where appropriate. Already law. Not changing.

You can live in your non-birth gender already. If you pass as that gender well enough, you just do it. You don’t need a law or certificate to do it. Thousands of people live this way and nobody is harmed by it.

Thank you to everyone who has made such well-thought out and articulate posts.

I'm another long-term MNer who has learned a lot about trans issues here. I have gone away and done my own research as well and have thought long and hard.

I have nothing against trans people in general. I have a lot of admiration for some transwomen, including many who post on MN. I believe that everyone should be able to wear what they want, wear/not wear make up, live in their own way etc. I have ALWAYS believed that we should be breaking down gender stereotypes. Why shouldn't men go around in beards, dresses and high heels if they want to? No one should face discrimination because of the way they express themselves.

I don't support self-id though. For me, it's not just about the GRA, or even mostly about that. It's about the societal changes that are happening before we are even consulted on the GRA changes. It's about males in Girlguiding, males on AWS and women's colleges, males who must be allowed in changing rooms and toilets without any challenge. colleges

Part of my concern is about safety. All those arguments have been made many times. We can't tell the difference between a 'real' transwoman and a 'predatory male' and in fact if 'being a woman' is the same as 'saying that you are a woman' then there IS no difference. And that is exactly what is being argued by TRA on Twitter.

But my bigger concern about trans ideology and self-id is what it means for girls and young women like my daughters. They are being asked to accept that 'being a woman' is all about the mind and feelings, and not about biology. The narrative says that you can 'know' whether you are a woman regardless of your body and that if your body does not 'match' with your inner feelings, then you can (and should) go ahead and change your body. It'll mean being sterile and a medical patient for life, but that's a small price to pay for being 'your true authentic self'.

Now, I remember being a teenage girl. It wasn't fun for me. At no point in my life have I ever 'felt like a woman' or experienced a 'gender identity' which told me that I was a woman. If I was a teenager today, being sold this trans narrative as inarguable fact, I would have to come to the conclusion that I am not, in fact, a woman. If the choice was between 'cis woman' and 'trans' then I'd have to choose trans.

And this is what scares me. Accepting self-id means accepting that feelings of identity are more important than biology. And that we can and should, alter the bodies of people -including children and teenagers- who do not feel that they are 'CIS'.

It bloody terrifies me.

It's not just about the GRA. It's about what we are teaching children about who they are.

jeez louise spoonless, lazy much?

It's not other people's job to make your fucking arguments for you. If you disagree come here and put the opposing side.

As you can see, people her fucking love it!

Spoon less that is so funny. Thread after thread of well thought out gender critical discussion, and you go with 'well one woman hadn't researched that well, so...'

I'll answer with 'Well one TW has committed violent sexual crimes, so...'

Thanks for flagging up the recent discussion on that other thread spoonless! Much appreciated.

So therefore I don't know how many of the rest of you are confident that you know all about it when in fact you're in a bubble.

Not in any sort of a bubble thanks. You?

If I was a teenager today, being sold this trans narrative as inarguable fact, I would have to come to the conclusion that I am not, in fact, a woman. If the choice was between 'cis woman' and 'trans' then I'd have to choose trans.

And this is what scares me. Accepting self-id means accepting that feelings of identity are more important than biology. And that we can and should, alter the bodies of people -including children and teenagers- who do not feel that they are 'CIS'.

It bloody terrifies me.

It's not just about the GRA. It's about what we are teaching children about who they are.

This. It's about the likes of Mermaids, GIRES, Gendered Intelligence, Transpire getting into schools and telling children that their bodies are wrong if they don't conform to regressive gender stereotypes.

It's important to remember that there are loads of transmen and transwomen that think like Jaycee and just want to get on with their lives, and a very small minority of TRA's screaming for attention like spoilt children.

I was involved in reviewing the HR policy and procedures for supporting transitioning members of staff in a huge banking organisation in 1997, including disciplinary measures for any one who bullied or harassed a transitioning person.

This was several years before some of the most vehement TRA's were a twinkle in their daddies eye. My friend was hounded out of her very good job in the public sector as she transitioned in the late 90's, and has been on NMW since.

But what would I know Donna? I've only been a Trans ally for about 24 years, and find being gender critical does not conflict with that in any way. More importantly, neither do the friends and colleagues I know or have worked say it does. We're usually talking about other stuff that we share interest in or working anyway.

I use preferred names and pronouns out of common courtesy, as there's a shortening of my name that I loathe so in asking others not to use that it seems only right to extend the same courtesy.

But since I'm just a woman, I guesd none of this matters.

@Spoonless

Let me answer that with:

I have also not heard every false argument made in this debate. Even though I have been fully immersed in it for three months. Because the argument that particular poster heard and asked about was false. On several levels

• the proposals made by the government do not just include changing the GENDER RECOGNITION ACT but also the EQUALITIES ACT

-the proposals are recommending REMOVING SEX BASED PROTECTIONS

-self-id is not just a statutory declaration with no repercussions. IT LEGALLY ENTITLES YOU TO ALL THE PROTECTIONS OF THE OTHER SEX. For women that is a huge deal

-self-id CAN EASILY BE ABUSED

-self-id IS ALREADY BEING ABUSED where organisations have adopted it without understanding or applying the EA correctly

and so on and so forth. I won't bore you further, but I'm not surprised that particular poster hadn't heard every single insidious lie that anti-women trans activists keep coming up with. I sure haven't.

Basing definitions and legal categories on a claimed sense of self (while denying the material reality of the sexed body) is pretty solipsistic wouldn't you agree?

That'll be that "projection" people talk about.

MrsKCastle, I hear you.

The trans-Ac definition of 'cis' is fucking crazy.

OldCrone, maybe that's my tee-shirt:

'My body is not wrong because I don't conform to a regressive gendered stereotype.'

So Donnabe came and posted on MN for no other reason than to get some twitter ammo.

All the bullshit about "no issues in Canada".
That's because it's now a bloody hate crime to report anything!

Where are all these trans women who are apparantly attacked on a regular basis by violent "TERFs" in the UK?
Fucking annoying when the TRAs basically claimed that the poor trans woman killed in London was due to TERFs. She was killed by a MAN not a GC woman.

Asking if you would've made it out alive from a meeting in the HOC's? WTF?!
Women and venue's have been threatened for hosting these events.

Why would transwomen want to use women's toilets if the threat from TERFs is so high? I mean, how would you be able to tell a TERF from a "woman"?

spoonless
No, of course not, but nor is she likely to be the only one. Additionally, it was an unknown unknown, i.e. she didn't know that she didn't know it. So therefore I don't know how many of the rest of you are confident that you know all about it when in fact you're in a bubble.

The poster you quoted seemed to think that a GRC could be asked for as proof that someone had one, whereas in fact, it is an offence to disclose if someone has a GRC, for example if you have come by that information as the employer of the individual. It cannot be asked for as proof that you are legally the sex you claim to be.

So effectively, self-ID means just that, since if nobody can ask to see a GRC, anyone can literally self identify.

Just thinking about that as I type, does that mean that we already have self-ID since the 2004 act?

I'm not in a bubble, but I'd never claim to know everything.

Good point - why do TRAs want to use TERF toilets?

Accepting self-id means accepting that feelings of identity are more important than biology

Completely agree and also worry about not being able to talk about biology.

If periods, pregnancy, cervical cancer, miscarriages, female infertility, abortions, menopause etc. are just random unconnected things that may or may not happen to men or women, how do we educate and prepare girls for life?

*Spoon less that is so funny. Thread after thread of well thought out gender critical discussion, and you go with 'well one woman hadn't researched that well, so...'

I'll answer with 'Well one TW has committed violent sexual crimes, so...' *

Look, someone said,

"I am actually stunned that you think we just read someone else's opinion (an anti trans campaigner, whatever one of them is) about the law around the GRA changes and concluded that they would harm us, without doing any research about the subject."

I merely said I wasn't stunned. Nobody is committing the all or nothing fallacy here, and I agree there is plenty of well thought out gender critical discussion. Would you just allow me not to be stunned if things occasionally go a bit Fox News?

Hi again Donna, nice name change.

I think you're the one on the misinformation trip today.

The proposed law covers not only mtf / ftm (whatever the heck that means wrt 'gender') but also 'non binary' people. As basically everyone who ever lived falls under the 'official' definition of non binary, absolutely anyone (see Travis Alabanza) will be able to use any single sex spaces not designed for their actual sex.

I’m confused spoonless. What did the poster assume about the GRC or self ID that turned out to be wrong?

No, of course not, but nor is she likely to be the only one. Additionally, it was an unknown unknown, i.e. she didn't know that she didn't know it. So therefore I don't know how many of the rest of you are confident that you know all about it when in fact you're in a bubble.

This is the least bubbly place there is. Anyone can post. You can't block people. You can post an endless post and are not limited to characters.

Transwomen post on here. Transactivists post on here.

There is literally no way to turn it into a bubble, or an echo chamber.

On Twitter transwomen and transactivists are blocking tens of thousands of people from responding to them.

Blocking people with whom they have never, ever even interacted!

Mumsnet is the only place that is open to all.

What is spoonless trying to say?

I think it's that someone didn't know something, despite reading all the threads.

There’s currently a thread on Twitter where a trans supporter is outraged that a FtM trans person was ‘quizzed’ about their transition by the ER team treating him for a broken bone.

Or in other words- taking his medical history and asking about any medication he is currently on.

Needless to say they’ve had their arse handed to them. But there are still a few trans virtue signallers who seem intent on being offended. Anti-science and no grasp of biology or reality. I ask you

I haven’t infiltrated mumsnet. I have been here for years to discuss my female infertility, my pregnancy, Labour, periods, menopause and all the other things that can be an issue for those who are of the female sex.

Don’t come arseing about on mumsnet telling people with the biology of women that they are being misled you arse-biscuit.

If I was a teenager today, being sold this trans narrative as inarguable fact, I would have to come to the conclusion that I am not, in fact, a woman. If the choice was between 'cis woman' and 'trans' then I'd have to choose trans.

Not sure who said this, but agree 100%. Every definition any trans person has given me of what a woman is or what they're transitioning to makes my 13-year-old self think: well that's not me and I never want that to be me, so I guess I need to start puberty blockers asap, order testosterone shots online from dark web marketplaces and look into chest binding.

I think pencils bubble may be sound proofed