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!!

I opened the thread, saw the first few replies and hoped to god that @Bowlofbabelfish would contribute with some actual, y'know, facts.

I was not disappointed.

Just doing my bit for Science

Ta bowl
Glad u here to tell me that stuff as I didn’t know what actually happened and might have taken wake post to be right

Are you suggesting that transwomen are a small minority of 'trans people in general'?

Yes, and most transgender people won't legally be able to Self-ID as Self-ID is usually described because they won't be able to sign the Statutory Declaration.

Incorrect. On both counts. You cannot just shuffle around soft tissues and create working female reproductive parts. The embryo does not start as a full default female - that’s a misunderstanding of the developmental pathways involved.

You are changing what the original poster said. This was a discussion about remapping soft tissues and the original poster was medically correct and you are wrong. I could give details but then people complain about being overly graphic.

Bowl thank you for your clear science based explanation. So important on these threads to make sure that truthful, factual, scientific content is available. It really is so helpful when someone comes along and can clear a way through the dross.

One cannot ‘remap soft tissues’ to form the structures of the opposite sex. What does that even mean? It has no meaning.

One can use /remove/resite various tissues and parts to create facsimiles, but the idea that an adult can have some bits shuffled around and they create working female anatomy is entirely incorrect.

Humans are not plug and play. Or lego. Or plasticine.

I'm still confused by trans ideology. So the foetus undergoes a testosterone wash, but the brain doesn't match the resultant genitalia. Someone with a penis thinks it shouldn't be there, and vice versa.

Doesn't this mean all trans people would have acute dysphoria that would be evident from the earliest age, maybe even babyhood? Wouldn't they all require surgery before they could have a fulfilling sex life? I've heard of other cases where people believe, for example, that their legs don't belong to them. They suffer and can barely function. How does the testosterone wash theory account for people who don't want surgery?

Of course you can't. Women don't have to regularly dilate their vaginas to prevent them from closing up.

An inverted penis is not a vagina. It doesn't form part of gestation, conception, menstruation. It doesn't have a cervix, it comes to a dead-end.

The vagina does have a purpose, you know! Other than just sex.

For anyone who is interested this is an article by Juno Roche, a transwoman who speaks very candidly about their neo-vagina.

www.refinery29.uk/transgender-vagina-surgery

It's hard not to have any sympathy for someone who has set much store by something that doesn't seem to have come true for them.

But it's also quite obvious, that this is a uniquely transwoman experience, not a woman's.

Mammyoftwo

Just to check, if someone born with a penis gets a gender recognition certificate, have they had to have their penis cut off in order to do so?

No, the figure is between 15 and 20 per cent at most.

Yes, and most transgender people won't legally be able to Self-ID as Self-ID is usually described because they won't be able to sign the Statutory Declaration.

Can you give me a brief description of what you mean by 'transgender people', Snappity? Is it everyone under the Stonewall trans umbrella? Because that is so broad it covers almost everyone.

Surely that just makes a whole farce of the article? When someone approaches a female only area such as a changing room, and they appear somewhat masculine what are the staff going to do? Ask for a gender recognition certificate??!!!!@ How are staff going to differentiate between those who identify as female versus those with a gender recognition certificate??

Answer: biological females are going to be intimidated as usual, and their right to a safe environment disregarded. The content of this article then is nothing but a token gesture.

Just to check, if someone born with a penis gets a gender recognition certificate, have they had to have their penis cut off in order to do so?

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. The UK law never made it a condition to have surgery before granting a GRC, and the European Court has since ruled (French case last year) that requiring sterilisation (which GRS would do) would be a violation of human rights.

I don't think the court gave adequate consideration to the implications of allowing men to become legally women whilst keeping their male genitalia.

People are struggling to know who is trans and who isn't.

www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/22/mexico-elections-fake-transgender-candidates-disqualified

HappensInHumans

I know what you mean , I can usually smell MALE COWS EXCREMENT

Common or garden BS

No, the figure is between 15 and 20 per cent at most.

Definitely not. Statistics aren't easy to come by but across both sexes we seem to be running at about 400 medical procedures a year (NHS and private) and a broadly similar number of GRCs. The two don't correlate because surgery is more difficult for trans men so in practice there are relatively few trans women with a GRC who haven't had surgery but a good number of trans men who have had a GRC but no bottom surgery, or only partial surgery.

Figures like 15% aren't in the right ball park. If about 200 GRCs are issued to women each year, that would suggest only 30 of the them have surgery. That's complete tosh.

Answer: biological females are going to be intimidated as usual, and their right to a safe environment disregarded. The content of this article then is nothing but a token gesture.

Correct.

It is currently illegal to ask someone to prove that they do or don't have a gender recognition certificate. Because it's considered that you are asking them to 'out' themselves.

If you ask a man to leave, because he is a man, and he says no I'm not - that's the end of the conversation.

Yet no refererence as to how the disqualified candidates lyricist and determined to be "fake" or "genuine" transgender people.

*candidates were assessed

Datun

This is shocking, heartbreaking and worrying and equal measure.

When the assessment as to whether someone has gender dysphoria/is transgender relies 100% on what the person says, you've got a problem.

It's purely subjective. Inidentifiable and unverifiable.

Pretending that this isn't a problem is just more gaslighting.

The TRA stance is that because you have to sign a statutory declaration, it would be a crime to lie.

Which obviously is the lamest of lame arguments Given that people lie all the time. And people change their mind and detransition.

Are they really saying that someone who is cured of gender dysphoria or comes to terms with it enough to detransition should then be subject to prosecution?

Actually, I'm sure they would love to say that.

Because I hear it all the time.

Lots of passing the buck going on in Scotland.

www.heraldscotland.com/news/16311379.schools-forget-girls-in-rush-to-adopt-pro-trans-guidance-campaigners-claim-as-christian-group-threatens-legal-action/

It looks like a legal challenge in each case is what is needed.

"The TRA stance is that because you have to sign a statutory declaration, it would be a crime to lie. Which obviously is the lamest of lame arguments Given that people lie all the time."

People already have to sign a Statutory Declaration to get a GRC. If you think that a lot of people are lying then presumably you have statistics to show a lot of prosecutions?

Has Jennifer James actually lodged documents with the High court against the labour party?