New guidelines - we aren't allowed to refer to natal sex

[Maryz]

According to KateMumsnet:

"We also thought it might be useful to clarify our thinking about general terms for trans people. Having said that TIM is not okay, it seems a bit illogical to allow other terms which hang upon natal sex."

Well that's that really, isn't it.

We are all being told to pretend that men have become women.

Am I going to be deleted/banned for this post?

The law is an ass, as they say.

Whatever, it is the law.

Are we following the law as it exists to the letter - as you claim is being done here with equality law, or are we supposed to work ahead of the law - as is being done with self ID?

Make your mind up.

Snappity
"we should moderate on the basis of the law"

Mumsnet moderates on the basis of promoting 'civilised discussion"

trans women are not sex = women without knowing their personal details

Well, that seems true by definition, yes. Unless you're now using trans woman to mean female person who transitions?

Snappity
"Whatever, it is the law."

Interesting... you maybe haven't been aware of the importance of changing laws re maital rape, abortion rights in Ireland etc etc etc etc etc

Whatever, it is the law.

There is no law requiring us to believe that the legal fictions created by the GRA 2004 are literally true.

The Equality Act is clear sex ≠ biological sex.

You are overstating the law here. It's not unsurprising as training organisations do promote this misunderstanding.

I had a very interesting conversation in Cornwall last weekend, a attempted disciplinary about the use of pronouns was lost on the basis of philosophical thought. The belief that sex change is actually possible is a philosophical thought and the disciplinary was thrown out.
Please note I am not advocating harassment here, and that wasn't considered to be happening either.

I've always been very sympathetic towards what we could call old school transwoman who apply for GRC.

I always found the whole live two years as a woman very sexist and regressive. And this is an opinion I have held from not long after the GRA was introduced.

I would be really reluctant to remove gender dystopia as a medical issue because basically all the funding will disappear. I don't get why this is being campaigned.

Sex is biological though, and it can't change. If it was possible to create an experiment where we took reproductive matter from four fit and healthy individuals who had uncompromised fertility, where the group was comprised of happened to be one male, one female, one transwoman and one transman and combined them in individual dishes in all the possible pairings, there are four combinations that would not be able to produce the beginnings of an embryo, never mind have anywhere for it to be implanted and grow.

If humans disappeared tonight, so would gender. Sex, being biological, would carry on as it always has - with other species continuing to reproduce.

This is what I get for trying to hypothesise while working. Two of those combinations wouldn't be able to produce an embryo, one of those two would have no where to grow one.

There is no law requiring us to believe that the legal fictions created by the GRA 2004 are literally true.

No but any post denying that people can change sex denies the law and is transphobic

The law doesn't say that.
S9 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004

I deny people can change sex.
That's just a bloody biological fact. We are not clownfish.

Screenshot that.

Mumsnet moderates on the basis of promoting 'civilised discussion"

Denying that some can change sex when the law says she can is not civilised discussion

No but any post denying that people can change sex denies the law and is transphobic

That is nonsensical snappity.

Is one not allowed to disagree with the law then? Not that the law even says that.

@JuzzaL

Last sighting 08.28.31 …

No but any post denying that people can change sex denies the law

No it doesn't. A real life situation where a GRC holding transwoman is denied a place on, for example, a "Women in Engineering" apprenticeship scheme based on their sex would be denying the law - because they get the legal status of woman for that end. It is not denying the law to refuse access of a GRC holding transwoman to, say, take part in a womens' sporting event in the interests of fairness to the other competitors.

"Outing" someone with a GRC as being trans would be denying the law.

Read this snappity

www.socresonline.org.uk/12/1/whittle.html

In particular the last pararaph:

8.8 The Gender Recognition Act enables legal �sex changes� - what legally constitutes male and female has changed. We share Sandland�s (2005) view that as we can now have men with vaginas and women with penises, the act does undermine the binary of two morphologically distinct sexes. We also agree that this poses no challenge to the idea that there are legally only two sexes (Sandland, 2005; Cowan 2005). However, what it means to be legally recognised as a man or a woman has now been redefined as it is not based on the body or biology. Thus, the Gender Recognition Act may not undermine the threat that trans people pose to the binary system of sex/gender (Sandland 2005; Cowan 2005). There are still only two legal sexes to choose from, but Gender Recognition Certificates will not be forcibly issued to all trans people � regardless of where they may place themselves on the gender spectrum; nor will all trans people wish to apply for one. Rather, the Gender Recognition Act offers those transsexual people who do identify as men or women, the right to be legally recognised as such even if one is a woman with a penis or a man with a vagina. The privileges afforded by legal recognition and gendered belonging should never be underestimated (Prosser 1998) and the desire for these does not make gender/sexual dissidents �apolitical and acquiescent� (Morland 2007: 13). Changing sex for the purposes of legal recognition then, is not about changing biology or changing bodies to �match� genders, but about changing how sex is legally defined. In that sense �having a sex change� has a different meaning with new political consequences and challenges.

So Snappity, this legal position does not make us apolitcal and acquiescent. And there are new political consequences and challenges.

We have not acquiesced, we are dissident.
We are discussing the consequences and the challenges.

We are discussing politics here snapppity and we are free to do so without your management of our speech.

No but any post denying that people can change sex denies the law and is transphobic

No, not really. And I speak as a lawyer who has specialised in discrimination law for a number of years.

The law, for example, has created a legal fiction so that companies are treated for most legal purposes as individuals. I do not for one second believe that eg Abbey National PLC is a person. Similarly, I do not believe that it is possible to literally change sex and that is fine. Transwomen are transwomen and there's nothing wrong with that.

Is The Rocky Horror Show banned these days too?

Can I just say about disagreeing with the law: mumsnet is 'disagreeing' with the law with this policy. Self ID is NOT law.