@PeakPants I've read loads of your comments and wanted to answer them! It looks like I am hounding you but I am not! I think some of what you say makes sense but I wanted to address the things you say that I do not agree with. Please do feel free to ignore me!
'How about if it was reformed to put a positive obligation on organisations to at least do a risk assessment to see whether any proposed measures may have an adverse impact on those of a particular biological sex? How about if proper guidance was drafted in order to assist organisations with their duties.'
I think a lot of organisatins are trying to make money, some providing a service are trying to save money. None have time for this type of 'navel gazing', no matter how well intentioned.
'The way the debate is going now, it looks like 'oooh, people are being mean to trans people- I had better clarify that trans people are definitely welcome at my swimming pool etc'.'
Actually, I don't think so. Honestly, I think organisations are afraid of being sued, or getting bad publicity. They are scared not caring. Sorry if that sounds cynical! If they were caring, why would they not care about women and girls?
'It might make you feel good to point out that trans people have AGP on twitter, but it will alienate people that you want as your allies.' I've never done this nor do I know anyone who does this! My transexual friend is always talking about AGP and how bad they are and I stick up for them! (Yes, I know that was not directed at me but I think you may find a lot of 'us' (here) don't have time to be on Twitter talking about AGP).
'I personally think it is more palatable and acceptable to frame the debate as 'we respect and value trans people and their rights and we will respect their choices.'
I do, as long as those choices do not impact negatively on women and girls.
'If they want to self-ID, that should not be cumbersome or humiliating for them.'
I don't agree getting a GRC is cumbersome, and I'm increasingly thinking we should do away with it and strengthen protections for any 'gender' presentations. Self Id is not a good idea for anyone at all. It devalues what being trans or female is and muddies the waters.
'However, there remains a small category of situations where biological sex must be the determining factor and all we are seeking is to retain those'.''' How are you going to know who is which sex? Will people submit to a DNA test, I would happily do so to get a card saying 'I am a female'. But I know some will not want to do thath. Or could people just present their passport...oh wait....
'But what is there that JF can do with GRC that she cannot currently do? I struggle to think of anything.' Get a female passport....
' and even if the process is changed, I don't think most trans people will bother.' Then why are they campaging for self id?
Honestly, either it is worth having or not.
If it is not worth having then why want it.
You know those old cartoons where the prospecter convinces the landowever there is no oil, or diamonds or gold or whatever on that bit of land and it is usefless anyway but hey I'll take it off your hands for a few bucks, and kerching! I'm syspicious, and although you seem very nice peak I am suspcicous of anyone who wants 'us' (society) to make a law that says any male who identifies as female is one. For like a 100 reasons. Actually 3.5 billion reasons.
'Biological sex is biological sex regardless of a GRC. I don't think someone who has lived as a woman for 2 years and has gender dysphoria (ie satisfying current rules) should be in a DV refuge or a female prison (possibly unless they have had surgery to remove their penis). So to me, it makes little difference whether it was hard or easy for them to get their certificate- it is their biological sex that excludes them.' I agree with you! But how you gonna prove you can exclude anyone?