Why are trans things discussed in Feminism section not a separate topic or have I missed something?

[PearlyG8]

Slightly confused. Apologies for any unintended offence.

It's philosophy, innit?

Necessary and sufficient conditions. Just for fun, and I am by noooo means advocating any kind of biological elitism Having a uterus, or ovaries or a vagina or being able to nurse with milk or gestate a baby (or ever having had) = sufficient conditions of being female. Not having a functional penis and producing sperm = necessary condition.

You can absolutely define sex efficiently and biologically without throwing intersex women under the bus. Unless your entire MO is throwing everyone under the bus to suit your agenda.

You can absolutely define sex efficiently and biologically without throwing intersex women under the bus. Unless your entire MO is throwing everyone under the bus to suit your agenda.

Exactly!

Failure to object is assumed to be acquiescence.
Here is an excellent essay on all the ways people say no and the people who pretend they do not understand.
yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/mythcommunication-its-not-that-they-dont-understand-they-just-dont-like-the-answer/

Snappity Sun 24-Jun-18 09:36:10 If there's no biological elitism then nobody will say that trans women's biology isn't good enough for them to be accepted as women

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

twitter.com/ResistersUK

I have learned a lot from this thread and I'm sorry if I have caused offence.

PearlyG8
There are some useful quotes, links and significant women to be aware of on this thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3284251-Lisa-Muggeridge-Suspended-by-Twitter-and-Quoting-her-breaches-MN-Guidelines

& this thread is very useful for anyone new to the issues:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3145470-Break-it-down-for-me

The phrase 'for all purposes' means 'to all intents and purposes' which means, basically, as if.

How on earth do you manage to read that into s9?

Then there's the fact that a female birth certificate is created (for trans women) . That has exactly the same force as any other woman has. Totally identical. No woman here has more.

Twice a week? More like twice a day. And it's always the same people trotting out the same old rubbish, desperately hoping to suck in a few more gullible recruits to the anti-trans cult

Wouldn't it be lovely if you'd actually taken the trouble to understand what I said - that we have the conversation the OP is referring to about having a separate trans topic on a really regular basis - instead of co-opting it to support some really piss-poor whiney bollocks?

The original entry in the birth register stays the same, doesn’t it? And the EA2010 still applies!

No woman here has more

I'll see your piece of paper and raise it an entire reproductive system and some chromosomes.

Transgender males are treated as women for some purposes, they are not recognised as the opposite sex.

No. There is zero in the Gender Recognition Act to support that claim. For example often-quoted the sport exemption does not say that a trans woman is not a woman. What it says is that sports bodies can have rules which limit participation in certain events depending on their medical history - generally testoster use - and that a GRC doesn't exempt a woman from those rule.

"The original entry in the birth register stays the same, doesn’t it?"

That a surprisingly complex question. At first glance, yes, but "male" is read as "female" so although the physical record doesn't change its legal meaning is switched. S9 of the Gender Recognition Act is possibly the single most amazing clause on the Statute books. It is Parliamentary draughtsmanship at its most brilliant.

Also, if you read through the Parliament site submissions when the GRA was passing, you will get the impression that the General Registry Office never changes records. It has since become apparent that that is not the case.

Snappity

It's provided for in the EA that there are occasions when even GRC holders can be excluded from women's spaces, and it specifically suggests rape counselling can be biologically female only. Why do you think that might be?

Then there's the fact that a female birth certificate is created (for trans women) . That has exactly the same force as any other woman has. Totally identical. No woman here has more.

Transgenders have more. They have both the amended and the original available for examination by law enforcement.

Birth certificates are reissued. The original stays within the registry but is locked. A new certificate is issued. That one is open. Some agencies have the right to view the original.

X post with thebewilderness

Snappity how is male ‘read’ as female? I don’t understand what that means.

"It's provided for in the EA that there are occasions when even GRC holders can be excluded from women's spaces, and it specifically suggests rape counselling can be biologically female only. Why do you think that might be?"

I think the honest answer is that nobody knows until a test case is brought. My best guess is that if someone with a male body and a male birth certificate they would lose and that if someone with a female birth certificate, hormones and surgery brought a case she would win. Between those two poles I don't think anyone knows.

"Birth certificates are reissued. The original stays within the registry but is locked. A new certificate is issued. That one is open. Some agencies have the right to view the original."

No the original remains and is not locked. All that is locked is the link between the old and new. Well, usually. Both can be locked in cases of adoption, for instance.

I am honestly not surprised almost nobody understands it. Birth certificates are surprisingly complicated and the Gender Recognition Act added a layer of abstraction which can only be described as unhelpful.

Yes they do seem complicated - so what do you mean by male is ‘read’ as female? I genuinely cannot understand!

"Snappity how is male ‘read’ as female? I don’t understand what that means."

I am not surprised. It is a very odd thing going on. Let me quote s9 of the Gender Recognition Act

Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).
(2)Subsection (1) does not affect things done, or events occurring, before the certificate is issued; but it does operate for the interpretation of enactments passed, and instruments and other documents made, before the certificate is issued (as well as those passed or made afterwards).
(3)Subsection (1) is subject to provision made by this Act or any other enactment or any subordinate legislation.

So sub-section 2 says that nothing which happened is changed but if there is a document hanging around with the old sex in it (exam certificate, birth certificate etc) then if it used say male we now interpret as saying female. If you like, it does not change history but it changes how history books record history.

Thank you Snappity - it is fascinating and bizarre, and I honestly don’t know how it was ever passed!

“The person’s sex becomes that of a woman” is such a huge problem, and should not have been allowed as a phrase. It dissects legal sex and biological sex and makes the two unrelated.

Upon the granting of a GRC, does a transwoman suddenly sprout and a womb; do chromosomes change? No, of course not.

The GRA needs repealing for exactly this kind of reason. ‘Legal fiction’ is now throwing up all kinds of problems. A biologist and a lawyer may have two entirely different definitions of the same word.

AAAAGGGHHHH

But thanks for the link.

Also, that word ‘interpret’ - we ‘interpret’ as saying female. Who is interpreting? Who is giving permission? What if you disagreed? I don’t understand how this works in practice - I can see how you might write to your old school, say, and explain the situation and get new exam certs - but they are diff docs, it is not a question of being read differently.

I honestly advise all posters to take any 'evidence' given by Snappity with a very large dose of salt. They are not always truthful and the links they post are often from dubious or non authentic authors/sites.