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.

Sorry spoonless

I think, possibly it's the way you write?

It's sometimes difficult to tell which part of your post contains the point you're trying to make.

Even to me. Although I know what you said, I'm not exactly sure what conclusions you drew.

It probably feels like people are taking too much notice. But that might be because with every explainatory post, it just becomes a little more opaque, for some reason!

@Donnabe

Can you understand how the repetition of the mantra ‘transwomen are women’ makes me feel like I’m living in a George Orwell novel?

Below are quotations from 1984

“It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.”

“Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.”

“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”

“You believe that reality is something objective, external, existing in its own right.... But I tell you Winston, reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else.”

CharlieParley

It really was. For me, the saddest part was that women advocating for men like that to have access to women's spaces, despite being frightened him herself.

@RealityHasALiberalBias That's a beautiful illustration of my point, exactly this!

"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.

Sometimes it's easier and safer to go as far as letting someone have sex with you than it is to risk antagonising/upsetting/offending them by saying no.

CharleyParley is spot on.

It really was. For me, the saddest part was that women advocating for men like that to have access to women's spaces, despite being frightened him herself.

YY exactly this.

@Datun I've wondered whether this incident made her think at all or if she explained away his behaviour with the terrible strain that feminist dissent puts him under...

Oh wow, only up to

We've seen time and time again that these 'women' don't know how to debate and presenting actual facts does nothing to moderate their views.

Women daring to have their own opinions rather than defer to the male one is horrendous isn't it. How awful that they will not change their views based on what some male people want. regardless of how many 'facts' you mainsplain to us, oddly enough, we tend to look into it ourselves rather than just assuming that the male view is the correct one. I know MRAs..sorry, transactivists do not like that though. The horror.

Also using 'women' when discussing, you know, actual women...

Surely that post is a wind up. I refuse to believe its real

DonnaBe - @pencils

Do you really want the sort of police state where everyone has to prove their gender all the time? 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?

What is this in response to please?

Welcome back OP. Can you explain what a Mumsnet civilian is?

CharlieParley

@Datun I've wondered whether this incident made her think at all or if she explained away his behaviour with the terrible strain that feminist dissent puts him under...

I tend to think that they are in a cycle of abuse. They might drift away from that particular thug, but fall under the influence of another.

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.
I wonder if you recognize this as the red flag that it is?
The burden is not on the listener or reader to understand what is being said. It is on the speaker/writer to be clear or clarify.
I am not suggesting that people do not play willfully ignorant or obtuse to wind us up sometimes but that is not what is happening here.

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?

But I found it significant. You come across to me as (re)actively aggressive, which I don't mind, but I did go out of my way to say that the obtuseness I've met on this thread isn't stupidity and I meant it. If what you say is the case then I'm happy to say I've been just as obtuse due to my different perspective.

I’m thinking that you didn't understand my perspective was different, I didn't understand that you didn't understand that my perspective was different. I'll have to go away and think about it but I think you might be dealing in a moral absolutism that I'm not.

Lol 😂.

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.

I still have no idea what your point was...and to be honest I don't think you do really.

I’m thinking that you didn't understand my perspective was different, I didn't understand that you didn't understand that my perspective was different. I'll have to go away and think about it but I think you might be dealing in a moral absolutism that I'm not.

You do that. I'm not sure how you perceived moral absolutism from that post though?

@Datun
Sorry spoonless. I think, possibly it's the way you write? It's sometimes difficult to tell which part of your post contains the point you're trying to make.

I've always thought that! Or rather when I'm drafting I tend to start with the conclusion and work backwards and then I have to juggle it all into place to make it as clear as possible.

@thebewilderness
I wonder if you recognize this as the red flag that it is?

:D I do actually, but as I say I think it comes down to different perspectives.

I have had this problem on other forums, with some people persistently misunderstanding me. Other people assured me that I was making perfect limpid sense, but who knows, they may be liars.

I've found elsewhere, though, that the further people deviate away from what I deem discussion to what I deem to be zero-sum dogmaticism, the more difficulties they have in understanding me. So "some" is taken to mean "every", "sincere" is taken to mean mean "right" and so on. That gets frustrating.

I'm not sure why spoonless having poor communication skills is the fault of those whose communication skills are better.

What's "limpid sense"?

If women being confident of their opinion and not afraid of stating it comes across as moral absolutism to some people, oh well, can't be helped.

We've seen time and time again that these 'women' don't know how to debate...
I think this is significant, because it comes up fairly often when talking with males and male identified people on the internet. Women usually discuss matters while men tend to like the pro and con debate format.
Debate is too narrow a structure for most women. They even go so far as accusing us of saying we wanted a debate when the truth is that we mostly do not. We want to discuss the ramifications of the proposed changes.

spoonless

I don't know how to help, to be honest.

One of the things I do is, instead of type, is use the microphone and speak my words into the phone.

It's quicker, and can sometimes have a more 'conversational' flavour.

Although, AutoCorrect or my phone mis-hearing me can throw up some very interesting results. You must always double check.

Another tip is maybe to say the same thing, but in one or two different ways. So you are repeating yourself, but just using different words. ( which is exactly what I did with those last two sentences).

Do you mean lucid, or limpid in the sense of clear as water?
This is the last straw for me. Your duplicity and misdirection has done me in.

"I tell you Winston, reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else.”

Our debate with with politicians.

I spent the morning reading how powerful this stuff is.

We have to send this incredible message to our MPs. I have written once to my MP and got a transwomen are women letter back, I'm going to write again. We have to be persistent. There is a thread with the SexMatters letter, they are working behind the scenes with lawyers on this.
Please help by writing to your MP. It's confidential.
Love you all.

I still have no idea what your point was...and to be honest I don't think you do really.
Wow. No, I do know exactly what my point was.

You do that. I'm not sure how you perceived moral absolutism from that post though?
Well, e.g., "What you said was bizarre because it so wasn't significant or important" ? That doesn't strike you as a tiny bit judgemental?