Transgender people can be turned away from female only spaces government says

[mammyoftwo]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5880533/amp/Women-allowed-bar-transgender-people-female-changing-rooms-toilets-ministers.html?ico=amp_mostReadNews

Apologies for the source, it's from the daily fail. However, if true it's definitely a victory worth celebrating!!

People are, on the whole, expected to wait for all sorts of things, and jump through ignominious hoops for the smallest of benefits.

Indeed. People going for PIP and ESA assessments have been asked if they have ever considered suicide, to describe the detail of any suicidal ideation and even worse - in fact so awful, you could barely credit it - been basically asked "if not, why not?"

Compare this to what GIRES have to say: The GRP is definitely minded to grant applications, wherever legally possible, which is why directions are given rather than making final decisions which might not be in favour of the applicant. So despite the high rate of requests for further information very few applications actually fail outright.

(www.gires.org.uk/gender-recognition-panel/)

Even trans lobby groups concede that the process is loaded in favour of the applicant.

There are millions - and by millions, I mean millions, I am not hyperbolising - of immigrants and benefits claimants who wish that the processes they are subject to were not loaded against them and that they were such a privileged - and when I say privileged, I mean privileged - group that government carefully organised its gatekeeping so that it was entirely in that group's favour.

Even trans lobby groups concede that the process is loaded in favour of the applicant.

There are millions - and by millions, I mean millions, I am not hyperbolising - of immigrants and benefits claimants who wish that the processes they are subject to were not loaded against them and that they were such a privileged - and when I say privileged, I mean privileged - group that government carefully organised its gatekeeping so that it was entirely in that group's favour.

Don't forget the chants, TWAW and The most oppressed group EVER! Or you will be told off for thought crime!

I'm loving the "well sometimes the panel might say no!" outrage. Well, yes, that would in fact be the point of having some sort of gatekeeping, the realization that human nature being what it is it's impossible that nobody who shouldn't get something will apply for it.

When DH and I were being assessed as prospective adoptive parents, we were subject to numerous assessments from professionals (we had to have medicals from our GP), professionals with varying degrees of ability and experience (one of the social workers was doing her very first adoption assessment; one should have left the profession ten years ago before becoming embittered), and lay people (the final stage was a panel of 12 people, including the council's medical advisor, senior social workers, an experienced adopter and various others).

Our assessment took nearly a year, and included discussion of our sex life, our childhoods, our relationships with our family and our friends, and a review of our parenting (we already had a birth child).

It was intrusive, lengthy, emotionally draining, and at times we both felt like giving up.

But, y'know, it's a necessary process to ensure that the right people get approved and people who wouldn't thrive as adoptive parents are weeded out of the system (or given help to address issues and invited to try again). Some prospective adopters have been told to lose weight before they can be approved (not morbidly obese, just overweight). Some have been refused because they disagree with SS's assessment of incidents that happened in their youth. And so on, and so on.

In a nutshell why self ID is wrong.

At present the decision on who should gain legal access is decided by doctors and those assessing if the person asking this deserves it on risk assessment.

Balance of doubt goes to all those they are asking to be accepted amongst.

With self ID the decision is entirely down to the person saying I don't need anyone else I am telling you I deserve it.

Balance of doubt entirely reversed to shut out any consideration of doubt.

Any reasonable person would see this is wrong and offer to find an accommodation.

Saying - no, I am right, do it my way, is not accommodation. It is worryingly like a good reason to say no.

The situation changed today with the ECJ decision in the MB case
eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62016CJ0451&qid=1530012353353&from=EN

The Government was arguing that MB was sex = M because she doesn't have a GRC. ECJ ruled that MB has sex = F, expressly for social security but there is zero reason to believe MB isn't sex = F across the entire competency of ECJ, notably employment and services.

So, when MB accesses social security (unless the Supreme Court sees something very different when the case returns to them), employment or services it seems she is sex = F. She has had surgery, but no GRC.

I know people are arguing against it (more it seems to me because they dislike the judgement than with any particular logic) but I think on the basis of this judgment that a trans woman who has had surgery legally is a woman (whether or not she has a GRC) and it would be unlawful to keep her out of any female single sex spaces.

What's the difference between a transwoman who has had genital surgery through choice and a man who has genital surgery because of cancer or some other medical condition (I know two men who have had testicles removed because of cancer) or following an accident?

Apart from the safe space exemptions even with a GRC that rightly exist and the government confirm are not changing.

When DH and I were being assessed as prospective adoptive parents, we were subject to numerous assessments from professionals (we had to have medicals from our GP), professionals with varying degrees of ability and experience (one of the social workers was doing her very first adoption assessment; one should have left the profession ten years ago before becoming embittered), and lay people (the final stage was a panel of 12 people, including the council's medical advisor, senior social workers, an experienced adopter and various others).

I have seen how agonising the adoption process is and I am sorry I left prospective adoptees out of my previous post. I should have included.

It just goes to show that extremist gender activists are so completely out of touch with any kind of context. These activists cannot even conceive of any context outside their own wants.

Nothing else in society works like this. Millions of people are subject to gatekeeping every day and much of it is effectively abusive. By contrast, the GRC process has everyone bending over backwards to find reasons to grant, and the activists can't stop complaining about it.

Suggesting that a woman having to dilate her vagina because of cancer is the same as a man having to dilate the cavity created by inverting his dick.... that makes you a complete cunt but not in the way you’d like.

Old Crone:"The court ruled that someone who had been through so much to change their appearance should have legal recognition as a woman."

ARGH. Women are not humans because of how hard we work on our appearances!

How are the men who make the laws this dumb?

How do I delete or edit the previous message? That totally came out wrong! lol

What I meant was just because a man 'works hard on his appearance', that doesn't make him a woman. WTH?

Layla I think you message MN asking to get it changed - people seem to do that from the thread, and in bold like I hope your name us here.

But I had understood what you meant anyway, wouldn't worry too much.

Thanks, AncientLights!

And there it goes back to Bunce. I refuse to only be a woman if I wear a dress, high heels and makeup. I’m a woman all the time, with everything that entails.

I've just looked back at the start of the thread to see the context of the post of mine (from nearly a year ago) that Layla quoted. It was about the introduction of the GRA in 2004.

The law was brought in due to someone who had had GRS taking their case to the European Court of Human Rights. The court ruled that someone who had been through so much to change their appearance should have legal recognition as a woman.

In this case, it would seem that the 'appearance' being referred to here includes genital surgery. I don't think the ECHR were referring to people like Bunce. Although the ECHR seem to have become increasingly vague about what steps someone needs to take if they want to change their legal sex.