Would you back self ID if...

[daimbars]

Once a trans women got their GRC they had to wait a period of time (say 5 years) before they were able to have the same rights as all women? For example they would only be able to apply for a job as a women’s officer, appear on a female only panel or to compete in women’s sport after five years of lived experience as a woman?

Someone I know is meeting with her MP to discuss how to propose this legislation. She thinks it will address possible repercussions from self ID and stop it being abused. I thought it was an interesting idea I could get behind.

@FloralBunting please share a link from a reputable organisation?

All I have seen is Stonewall proposing to change the protected characteristic in the Equality Act from transsexual to gender identity. This doesn't pose any threat?

And the proposal to the government which was rejected.

The only 'evidence' I have seen posted on here are Tweets from TRAs saying rude things which have about 2 likes.

We slept and as a consequence here we are.
Individual women have to be the guardians of women's rights all the time, because they were given grudgingly and are always at risk of being taken away.

As if we have the power to stop that happening at any point.

No one here buys it Daim.

@Ereshkigal I'm inviting you to prove me wrong? Please share something from a reputable organisation and I will take it back.

It's not just your username's initials, Massively, it's a well known phrase, and she said daimbarrs' name afterwards and clearly wasn't referring to you.

No. Transwomen are a subset of men, not women, no matter how long they've been presenting as a woman. Am quite happy for trans people as a class to get better provision but not for them to be merged in with women as if there was no difference.

I suggest you read the many things other people with an ability to post links have already posted time and time again. I'm afraid I can't link them on my phone, but they are all over the forum. Things that have even been referenced by others on this thread.
I get it, honestly. You think everything raised is hysteria, and you aren't that bothered anyway. As I said, you see no ships.

All I have seen is Stonewall proposing to change the protected characteristic in the Equality Act from transsexual to gender identity. This doesn't pose any threat?

I literally pointed out to you upthread where they have said word for word that they do not agree with the exemptions and want to repeal them. Go back and check- I think barack posted the link to the document. Maria Miller's report DEFINITELY recommended repealing them.

And the proposal to the government which was rejected.

As I said, it has not 'actively' been rejected. But anyway there is an issue in how the current law is being interpreted.

The only 'evidence' I have seen posted on here are Tweets from TRAs saying rude things which have about 2 likes.

Evidence of what? Did you not read below about dignity and privacy?

You make me laugh Daim.

Hopefully someone else will oblige but you're not worth bothering with. Go and look up Swim England, Caledonian Sleeper, YHA, the CPS, Girl Guiding, NHS, any political party. Go and look back on FWR at the hundreds and hundreds of threads about specific organisations' policies and how they are ignoring the rights and feelings of women and girls.

massivelyouting, oh ok, you want to have a flounce because even though I clearly wasn't talking to you and was instead using a well known phrase acronym that happens to be the same as a possible shortening of your MN nickname, I was secretly having a dig.

If you're irritated because you feel you haven't been agreed with or listened to, own that. Don't make out that I have been mean to you when I wasn't even talking to you at all.

Well you misunderstood and she apologised that it wasn't clear. So maybe time to move on.

Sorry Floral, that was to Massive.

Sheesh, I even apologized for your confusion.

Female socialisation

massively she also said 'your MO, daim'. To me, that does not suggest she is talking to you at all because why mention daim and why say YOUR MO? MO is clearly modus operandi which is a very common term. She did also clarify and apologise...

Daim

www.cartridgeslaw.co.uk/web/data/stonewalls_response_to_the_women_and_equalities_select_committee_inquiry_on_transgender_equality-1.pdf

Here. FFS. Again, read section 21 of this report which says amongst other things:

Stonewall is deeply concerned that exemptions within the Act actively remove protections for trans people.

Trying to make this into an issue about people who look sufficiently like women to already gain access is simply another way of saying: we are already there, please let all me in.

There will never be anything we can do about people who look enough like women to gain access. There aren't many of them, and they would have got in anyway, without the GRA.

As for those with a GRC who don't: they need to know they have to carry it at all times. This will act as a deterrent to sexual predators. If [acronym] aren't prepared to do that tiny thing to help women, then I think their motives are clear.

Self ID needs to be halted, and this farcical lie that the Equality Act is not under attack needs to be exposed over and over again.

There will never be anything we can do about people who look enough like women to gain access. There aren't many of them, and they would have got in anyway, without the GRA.

Agree. They can sneak in. I don't like it, but it's not a reason to throw open the gates to literally all men.

I think the battle for female toilets has been lost.

I think there are battles that can be won - prisons, refuges, sports
aws etc - where the arguments are unanswerable

If the first battle has been lost because "acronym" is in there, so have the other. There are now "acronyms" in prisons and sports that we already know about, and probably refuges too.
So no sorry, the battle has not yet been lost, and do I hell want to concede anymore spaces to "acronyms"
They could always shut the fuck up and be grateful that we used to allow them validation. Well no more.

In addition to Stonewall, TRA are already changingbit by stealth. Across the country, the protected characteristic of 'sex' is being removed and replaced with gender.

This wording was 'quite deliberately chosen' says transactivist Sarah Brown. Stop pretending. The game is UP.

No problem, massivelyouting. Genuinely didn't make the connection. I read your NN as 'massive youting' which didn't make a lot of sense to me but I thought might have been an oblique youthwork gang reference, because I am so not down with the kids...