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.

Copy pasting my previous posts, merrymouse:

Sunflowersforever said:
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? "

I said:
These are the most basic counterarguments, and someone who has "really been tuned into the whole self-Id issue and subsequent discussions through mumsnet" hadn't heard them. Doesn't that bother you?

Zero criticism donna, I was impressed with the tweet and went of to research her.

I have felt respect for the way you have debated here.

I did point out earlier you may have gone for lunch, hence not posting at that time; and work is generally a reason that stops me posting on mn.

I suppose we weren't sure however, it's very hard to tell on mn.

We have had many "ploppers" who post and then don't reply or engage in debate and do a runner.

I can't explain it any more, because the obtuseness I've met on this thread isn't stupidity, it's people having totally different outlooks and priorities and not talking the same language.

So when dropping the exact same thing on a different thread didn't immediately convince us that we were all being manipulated by shadowy forces Donna decided to try a whole new thread?

That went well.

Not really. Transactivists are only just realising that women are fully informed about self ID. This bollocks about it's only a statutory declaration is spreading like wildfire as a counter argument. (When it isn't. You can't prove that someone has lied).

Stat Decs as a point of debate is fairly recent.

Lots of women will not have heard that argument yet.

Also, many women aren't really interested about the finer points of the law. Because the law is completely wrong and being exploited.

You can hold that opinion, you know. That the law is wrong it should change. It's how women have changed every single law which disadvantages them for hundreds of years.

The equality law IS being exploited.

So you either strengthen the safeguards, or you scrap it and start again.

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

OP - speaking as a transwoman, this is where you went wrong. I am sure you appreciate that now.

There are a lot of concerns over the proposed changes and especially with the fact that someone with a GRC aquires 'the new sex' within law.

There are many people who claim to be trans - yet there aren't many operations take place. Something like 150 a year in the UK?

I don't know how many have HRT. But surely you can see why people think that medicalisation, psychiatrists appointment, and a very good reason not to have had surgery are needed to get a GRC.

There are women on here who have less of an issue with a transwoman who has a GRC. It shows that the journey has taken place. If someone just has to self declare to get GRC, that does kind of lower the threshold.

I don't know if you've had medical investigations or even surgery.

Please read some of the many threads on here. Please listen to how trans activists are shutting down debate.

Oh - and MN is not being invaded.

because the obtuseness I've met on this thread isn't stupidity, it's people having totally different outlooks and priorities and not talking the same language.

Do you count yourself in that "obtuseness" then?

I'm A-OK with getting my "I'm an actual woman" card! Where do I sign?
That would be the birth certificate that you can use a GRC to have changed from material reality of your sex to the sex or gender you believe yourself to be.
Writing law to accommodate the delusional disorders, fetishes, and self serving prejudices, of males is long standing tradition all over the world.

See the thing is it works, sex segregation. We have it now and we don't have a police state, we can challenge males if they are in our spaces. In countries without these spaces women die, or are raped, or just stay at home.

Self id has been adopted in other countries and women are told not to make a fuss when they see a man with an erect penis next to them. So they put up, and they shut up, as they have always done. That is going backwards.

Women and girls deserve to retain their hard won, sex based protections. We are real biological people, we exist. We matter.

Please stop campaigning to have my sex reduced to a feeling in your head.

But spoonless, all the things Sunflowersforever said they didn’t know about have been debated here, many times.

Why are you assuming that because one person says they hadn’t discussed something, many other people haven’t either?

In any case, it’s all moot because what they were saying was wrong.

@DonnaBe

If you make trans women prove what they are you’ll have to do it for non trans women also. Otherwise how do you know you’re not missing a trans woman?

I wonder if you cannot understand this because you were not born female and socialised as a girl from birth?

Every mother when I was little taught her girl(s) to assess the risk she is putting herself in when moving in the presence of men. To pay very close attention to behaviours and moods, to nonverbal cues (body language, gestures, facial expressions). To how they change when intoxicated or frustrated or angry.

When we are little, of course, it's nowhere near that sophisticated but the very first thing girls learn in this process is to spot a man. Any man, however he's dressed and wherever he may be lurking.

It is literally a survival instinct. Part of this instinct is to avoid challenging a male when we do not know it is safe to do so. Subconsciously we compute cost-benefit analyses and most of the time our instincts tell us the pay off is too small or unimportant for the risk we would assume in challenging a male. I've decided against in too many times to count, including in toilets and changing rooms.

And FYI we've been sharing spaces with the most masculine of women for hundreds of years - if you look at the publicised stories of those women being mistaken for men and being thrown out of toilets or such like, it is almost always men who mistake them for men, not women. Masculine women also know how to put the other women at ease - they were socialised as women after all. That's not something you know or, judging from your posts, even care about.

TL;DR Just because women do not challenge your presence in the ladies doesn't mean we don't recognise you as male.

This bollocks about it's only a statutory declaration is spreading like wildfire as a counter argument

I have seen that argument - and people have ignored the fact that it changes your status legally - which has lots of ramifications.

A GRC acquired at the moment has been 'earnt'. Apparently some trans activists are pissed off that is has to be 'earned' this way - and certainly some of the paperwork seems pointless.

To get surgery in the UK, you need 2 psych appointments and a diagnosis.

To get a diagnosis, you need the appointments and proof of 'living in your new gender'.

To get a GRC, you need to show them the medical evidence of surgery (or a reason why not), evidence of HRT, the letter from the doctors and the psychiatrists and lots of evidence of name changes and other documents - all of which you needed to get surgery in the UK.

These are the most basic counterarguments, and someone who has "really been tuned into the whole self-Id issue and subsequent discussions through mumsnet" hadn't heard them. Doesn't that bother you?

Does it bother me that they hadn't come across these arguments, or does it bother me that they didn't realise that they were both easily rebutted?

It doesn't bother me that some other poster hasn't heard all the arguments, or that they don't know all the answers. We all start from a place of limited knowledge and learn more as we read and ask questions.

There have been a couple of threads about self-ID in other countries recently, but there are so many threads here running to hundreds of posts that they could easily have been missed.

The issue of the legal implications of the EA2010 and the GRA and possible changes to it have also had long threads here recently, but again it would be easy to miss them for the reasons above.

So, no, I'm not totally surprised that even someone who has spent a fair amount of time here does not know all the arguments.

CharlieParley

That exact scenario was played out during violence at speakers corner. A transactivist had been violent and joined the melee around Maria Mac.

He was so aggressive that one of his female allies went to pull him off. At which point he turned violently on her. She backed off a good 5 to 10 feet with her hands up in a placatory manner, before another transwoman ( I think, the person was very tall) deflected him.

She wanted him to stop, she was clearly rather horrified. She tried to stop him, and then backed down immediately when he was, in turn, aggressive towards her.

Completely learnt behaviour based on experience.

It is true that there has been an increase of people coming to MN arguing in favor of the amendment to laws to permit application and issuance of a GRC based on the assertion that they intend to live as a woman by using the women's loo and changing the sex designation on their birth certificate.
I think this is because of the news articles that have been written recently.
I also think that DonnaBe is one of those people.
I think it is important to always remember that just because women are not calling you on your behavior, be it harassment, or mansplaining, or using the loo, it does not mean they do not notice or mind. It is a common mistake to read failure to object as acquiescence.

but the very first thing girls learn in this process is to spot a man. Any man, however he's dressed and wherever he may be lurking.

This is very true. Just because we don't say anything doesn't mean we don't notice.

As much as the legislation itself, it is very worrying that the only people who seem to have the ear of politicians are trans activists who believe that trans women are women and that talking about women’s bodies makes you a ‘biological essentialist’.

I just don’t trust Stella Creasy or Maria Miller or anybody else who uses the word ‘cis’ with a straight face to protect women’s rights.

@yetanothertranswoman

Thank you for your informed posts on this. You help remind me every time that the transwomen I knew of old are still here. Those with whom I've consented to sharing spaces with for decades (but as they usually just want to live their lives in peace they are so often unheard in this debate).

A GRC acquired at the moment has been 'earnt'.

It is on this basis that I have supported the GRA and why - until very recently - I supported self-id. I honestly thought self-id would help transsexuals with an administrative burden and allow them to get on with the lengthy and careful process of transitioning while their legal status was secure already.

The push to demedicalise gender dysphoria and the denial that sufferers need any help (especially not therapy) is part of why I changed my mind. I have friends who work with GID patients and they benefit greatly from having a trained MH professional who accompanies their mental and emotional journey while the doctor looks after their physical journey.

They see this formerly fringe but now dominant argument as potentially life threatening to GID sufferers and expect a rise in post-op detransitioners as well as a worsening of mental health outcomes. I understand that not all GID patients can access the help they need as quickly and easily as they should, but demedicalising GID definitely won't improve medical access.

"I think it is important to always remember that just because women are not calling you on your behavior, be it harassment, or mansplaining, or using the loo, it does not mean they do not notice or mind."

Quite. What woman out there hasn't been in an awkward situation with a man, where she's felt unsafe, and has handled the situation by masking her discomfort and pretending to be comfortable with the man - even laughing with him - so as not to upset him and put herself at risk.

There's a photo somewhere of me in a pub, there's a man looming over me - he was utterly wasted and even surrounded by people I knew I felt at risk - my response was to put on my sweetest smile and hope he'd move on. Luckily a male friend intervened shortly after.

CharlieParley

Masculine women also know how to put the other women at ease - they were socialised as women after all.

Absolutely! I’m not someone that would be mistaken for a man face to face, but I am tall and of large build, and I walk fast with a big stride. I’m very conscious that if I’m walking behind another woman she might well hear my footsteps and be anxious - sometimes I see them tense up. I’m aware of this, because like most women I’ve had men deliberately intimidate me by speeding up behind me on the pavement. I try to make sure that I let that woman in front of me know I’m not a threat - I might cross over to the other side, cough in a higher pitch or say something to my dog, if he’s with me, so she can hear my voice.

Is it fair on males that women have to tar them all with the same brush as a defence mechanism? No, it’s not, but there’s no other way to stay safe. This isn’t bigotry, it’s the result of a lifetime of well-founded, defensive suspicion.

Transwomen of course know this, because they are subjected to male violence too - which is why they should recognise that the problem is not women. There are many trans people here on MN who know full well that the trans umbrella now covers a wide range of behaviours and lifestyles - some of them downright dangerous to women and children - and they don’t like it any more than feminists do.

Instead of coming here and lecturing us on the supposed radicalisation of this community, have a closer look at yours DonnaBe.

Do you count yourself in that "obtuseness" then?

Yes, to an extent, except I don't think any of you have had to make half a dozen clarifying posts in order to get me to understand the basic thrust of what you've said.

And I could ask both Stella Creasey and Maria Miller for their opinions on Syria or nationalisation of the railways, but I don’t think either of them would feel comfortable defining the word ‘woman’.

What you said was bizarre because it so wasn't significant or important. People were questioning themselves that they had understood what you meant because of that. And you come across as quite passive aggressive. Like that last reply, you're still implying that we're stupid, aren't you?

@Datun that video was scary and enlightening, wasn't it? It was such a powerful demonstration of male and female socialisation...