Trans women are women, is the biggest oxymoron ever written.

[happydappy2]

If trans women are women, then why do the words trans women exist? I don't understand how law can not be written in a way that recognises women as women and trans women as trans women.

Thus trans women are treated with respect and dignity, and so are women. This blurring of the lines is helping no one.

Who ever claimed that trans women are women? Unless we can differentiate between the 2 there will always be conflict. Is it too late for reality to kick in here?

Safeguarding? When I talk of safeguarding on fwr I mean the safeguarding of women and girls not TS.

But that is the point of safeguarding. It was a process that filtered out 90% of those who wanted to 'change sex'. Because the process deemed them inappropriate to transition - for instance because they had a sexual fetish. So psychological assessment stopped the ones that had major issues or could not accept reality that biology never changes. Something the gatekeeping also insisted upon acceptance of before approval.

Yes, that safeguarding stops people making mistakes and transitioning inappropriately.

But it IS safeguarding for women - too - in very real ways because the consequence of letting through all these people and legalising their presence as women amongst women is surely no less important to you than it is to them?

But that is the point of safeguarding. It was a process that filtered out 90% of those who wanted to 'change sex'

I've never seen this figure quoted before.

The process is to protect the TS, to ensure that they don't make mistakes they may live to regret. Quite right too, the process is for TS.

The process is not designed to protect women and girls, it doesnt even pretend to protect women and girls.

If there was a test to show which males are harmless to women and which ones are dangerous,why wouldn't it be used for the general public?

But it is to protect women and girls, too, or rather was.

You have to bear in mind that I transitioned a very long time ago when this was new and a great deal more was done about it than now. Including attempts at what today would be called conversion therapy.

Surgery was very much a last resort and a no other option solution to which doctors then only were led if they saw no other way to try to create a reasonable chance of a happy life.

The 90% turned away was a figure quoted by doctors to me and to my parents (I transitioned young for 45 years ago so they were involved in all of this throughout). Both in the first clinic I was at and where I was tested and the psych unit where I spent weeks under assessment. When I was transferred to Charing Cross to go on the surgical pathway I was told similar things.

And I saw this happen during all this time as it worked to gatekeep away people who were clearly sexual fetishists. And others who would have been a danger to women if allowed to transition because they had heavy psychiatric issues either because of, or that was causing the misperception of being trans.

Bear in mind that then - over 30 years before the GRA existed - the whole point was to blend in, accept biology and try to get on with your life quietly because if you did not want to find yourself in a legal quandary then you had to just do that and not cause a fuss.

The whole point was to live a normal life and not be noticed or make yourself look different. It was all about fitting in and being stable.

Whereas today it looks more about being different and calling attention to that difference via 101 flavours of gender, or however many there are this week.

Nobody was allowed to have surgery without signing a waiver to say that they understood they were not actually changing sex. That alone would rule out half the applicants.

So - surely - you can see how this process was protective of women by preventing the transition of people who were deemed by the assessment process of being a problem.

So - surely - you can see how this process was protective of women by preventing the transition of people who were deemed by the assessment process of being a problem.

No. The process protects TS from making decisions that they are likely to regret.

The process doesn't protect women and girls, but it was never intended to.

What test could ensure that a male person would never be a danger to women and girls?

I guess we will have to agree to disagree that the gatekeeping helped women as well as trans people,

I think many women might have felt quite a bit less safe if some of those I saw whilst being assessed had been able to legally transition.

I was certainly pleased that they were sensibly deterred.

Hi home, I hope you don't mind me butting in, I have been following the thread and reading your posts and I think there might be a bit of cross purposes between posters with safeguarding and gatekeeping? This conflation might be what's driving the continued discussion on this point.

How does any male entering women's space help women and girls?

I see how gra helps TS, but don't pretend it does any favours to women.

Someone just posted the following on the Penny Mordaunt thread and it's what I believe we need to remind people of whenever there's discussion of 'keeping women safe' in the context of changes to the GRA:

TRAs (though not all trans women) insist they belong in the sex class called "women". So the glaring black hole, from which no logic will escape, is that once you accept that people can identify in the class they feel they belong you can no longer provide single sex spaces.

Trans women who believe they are women will insist they are women and may not be excluded from single sex facilities. How then, does any organisation - DV refuges, Girl Guides etc. refuse to accept a person who says they are a woman if the law says they are a woman and should be treated in the way they identify themselves?

Not sure what to say except transsexuals totally support the safeguarded spaces and need for them to have been built into the GRA.

They rightly protect the things that can be protected within the law - such as refuges, shortlists and sports. And we are also happy to talk about codifying them more fully rather than leaving them to interpretation as many places do right now almost presuming self ID exists so why have any proper rules.

I guess the division is between those who feel the GRA itself should never have been passed. And even should now be repealed. Or that any transsexual should have ever entered a female toilet at any time in history and those who have are acting improperly.

Of course, I see the reason for that argument and why some of you strongly believe it. Though I doubt the GRA in of itself actually changed what happened in that respect before or afterwards.

My suspicion is that far more than 4990 transsexuals were entering these spaces the week before the GRA was passed and still were the week after the GRA was passed.

It was not a law that caused that to occur. Or the removal of a law that would therefore really stop it now.

in fact my belief is if it was 'banned' then the ones who would comply would be the 'good guys' who would go to that trouble feeling guilty and the ones who wouldn't would be the ones demanding validation and seeing this rejection as a challenge. So I doubt such an edict would actually help resolve the situation. It could conceivably make it worse.

Though other things might, of course, help - like alterations to the whole structure of provision of such facilities. Which is a long term and reasonable goal. But will not happen quickly given cist implications in a post Brexit era.

It is easy to argue about hypotheticals as to what should or should not have ever happened - but in the real world we live in now, let alone 40/50 years ago when single disabled toilets were scarce, post operative transsexuals were likely not going into the men's toilets much if ever at all.

Not for any negative reason but out of consequence of the transition process that operated then surgically to normalise a life and blend in and that was not going to happen otherwise.

Though it was instilled into you not to use the ladies pre surgery for sensible reasons which was widely followed.

That seemed a fair compromise to us I think as the whole point of medically assisted transition was not to create a cultural revolution decades before the world would have a clue what that meant but to blend in, heads down and live as normal a life as possible.

In a world where there was no legal recognition for decades to come that meant society making accommodations, as it did. Perhaps we did not see that to the degree that we should have done, I don't know.

Changing most paperwork (including passports) depended entirely on medical support to do so and not on any law. The GRA really made little difference to the legal paperwork side other than the birth certificate thing that only 3000 have ever had altered even now.

So the GRA really changed little in terms of day to day life for transsexuals. Other than alter pension and marriage rights for some. Decisions on use of toilets, on which ward hospitals decided to put you in etc were always self determined - by the TS themselves in the first case and hospitals in the second.

In both cases genitals likely played a part in that decision making.

It is easy to theoretically rewrite the rules as if this was all starting over today. Which it may be given the change in scope , if self ID comes in and alters the landscape.

How much any government would commit to do when it would involve imposing restrictive changes retroactively I am not sure.

Some more control over spaces is pretty likely I would imagine - if not legally done then self imposed on site - if self ID comes in, because of course I can see how this removes any vestige of reassurance and leaves an almost zero tolerance response as a likely consequence.

It is obviously a difficult position for me to be in, as it is hard to argue I do not have any self interest.

Though I would deal with it in the way I have everything else in life. An advantage of not being new to this and having lived a long time realistically aware of the accommodation involved both with and without legal protections. And always with the aim of avoiding confrontation.

Cannot truthfully say I would be thrilled but equally I also understand entirely why such moves might be made by you.

I am not going to argue against anybody fighting to do what they think is right. But, trying to put any self interest aside, will say that I think it unlikely any government will actively repeal laws that are really there because of human rights conventions that they will probably not consider removing.

By all means try if you see that as a winnable fight. But I think the realistic battle is the one to fight and worry about changing anything else afterwards.

It will in my view be far easier to do that reasonably if you are dealing with 5000 transsexuals than it would be with 500,000 in the wider trans umbrella post self ID.

That's the one thing I am very sure about.

Safeguarding and gatekeeping are two very different things. Yes, gatekeeping might make safeguarding easier - but they are not at all the same.

Home I think you might well have a good idea regards gov't spending some time reading through the threads on here, highlighting precisely the fears Mothers have for their children, & our concern of losing sex segregated spaces. It is such a shame the activists aren't campaigning for 3rd spaces for trans people, rather than demanding access to womens spaces. They seem to have overlooked that women make up 50% of the population & we are not going to give up our safe spaces-for the protection of ourselves and our children. The awful reality is that male violence does frequently lead to rape & murder of women, so there is just no way we will allow any biological male into our changing rooms & bathrooms. This idea of self id is just too problematic-there has to be checks & balances.

Realistically, how do we provide much needed and wanted safe environments for women and girls, that let TS in but excluded every other male?

I think it would be more honest, and safer for women and girls, if we acknowledge that we don't have and we are not entitled to sex segregation save for a few situations. But I'm not even sure what these situations are - it's not prisons, hospital wards or mental health units.

I don't want to let transsexuals in. I want a third space for them. I want to be able to have men removed from women's toilets and changing rooms and other appropriately female spaces without fear of committing a hate crime. I know some will flout it, but less, and there will be disincentives.

Yes, that safeguarding stops people making mistakes and transitioning inappropriately.

But it IS safeguarding for women - too - in very real ways because the consequence of letting through all these people and legalising their presence as women amongst women is surely no less important to you than it is to them?

Bullshit. They never gave a moments thought to women and girls when they designed the process. Nor did they when they wrote the GRA. All they cared about was screening out those men who may regret, for their own good and the reputation of the practitioners.
The discussions and papers written in the early days demonstrate this.

I did not say they purposefully created the gatekeeping to help protect women. I don't know either way. Just that it has had a positive effect in that regard as well.

Certainly compared with what could be coming next if self ID goes through.

Yes. It's a good thing. Self ID is bad for transsexuals, children and women.

I actually don't care where trans women go. They don't want to pee or change with men. Fine, I totally get that. Sort something out like women had to. Their discomfort at sharing with other men does not mean they get to co opt ours.

I don't see how gatekeeping of GRC had had a positive effect on women's and girls safety.

The GRA activity removed women's and girls ability to have sex segregation when they wanted it.

Please explain to us how requiring males to use the women's loo, changing rooms, and other facilities, for two years to demonstrate "living as a woman" was a positive safekeeping outcome for women and girls. Quite the opposite and indeed how we got to where we are now.
It could be worse is not an argument.

That did not happen 40/50 years ago so I do not know if or when that was introduced or why.

As I said earlier we were asked NOT to use the ladies prior to GRS even though that was very difficult as there were very limited single cubicles.

Most of the people who got a GRC in the first couple of years after the GRA had actually transitioned long before and so were well established living their lives already.

Only 200 - 300 new people a year are getting one now. That is the base level of transsexual cases.

So whether or not the people who signed up to the GRC in the first year or two were using loos and changing rooms was something that had been decided well prior to its existence.

The two year rule of using loos if that was indeed part of the GRA process (I don't know as I say if or when that changed) may have set a precedent, I agree, if that is what happened.

However, many, many people will have been doing this before and still will be accessing them now without ever having a GRC. So it was not the possession of a GRC that dictates who uses a loo.

I think that is another clear problem.

I agree that the GRA serves little purpose if it is an unchallengeable document. I do not think that it should be.

I believe there should be a record that safe spaces can check in the same way police can check birth certificates to establish actual sex of a person under investigation.

They are choosing not to do that and just recording self ID. That is totally wrong and they should be checking that register and recording crimes correctly.

This is one thing we should insist ought to happen right away. The government could that without consult. It is common sense and the law and should not even need to be asked of them. It would be a positive start.

I think that there is no good reason the same place that has the birth certificate link should not also be able to affirm a GRC around reasonable enquiries for space access.

That's my personal view and I think it might get past the current 5000 transsexuals who mostly seem willing to find a peaceful solution. However, I would expect it would be greeted with an outcry about civil liberties and breach of privacy if GRCs were made more widely available via self ID.

I do get entirely why you think it should have been handled differently 40/50years ago regarding access to spaces. Long before the GRA as such. That's when the die was cast.

Did what doctors decided to do half a century ago throw women under the bus by transitioning TS people in the way they did?

Maybe, I don't know.

But I am sure it was never intended in a negative way. It was all about medical support and physical transition then. Which meant post surgery you would use loos and changing rooms as otherwise you could not really transition in the way the pathway was designed.

For you I can see why that looks like creating a living lie. But it was I think based around a quite different society where things roles were more structured than now and no nuances as such. Plus being on the basis of tiny numbers who would physically transition each year and a presumed medical necessity that was being treated.

I don't think anybody foresaw the huge expansion in numbers and ways of being considered to have transitioned or to be considered as trans that we are seeing now.

And that has undoubtedly changed everything.

So, yes, I agree new conversations do have to be had as a result of it.

Women were objecting 40 and 50 years ago and being ignored just as they are now.
Doctors were objecting forty and fifty years ago and being threatened just as they are now.
There has been no time when this absence of ethics was not reported as a controversy rather than the absence of ethics that it is.

I’ve only been on MumsNet about a week but I take everything back I’ve posted previously as it’s clear over that week that there are more than a few posters across many threads who are extremely aggressive and dismissive to trans people as a group.

Trans women are women. Trans men are men. Non binary people are just as worthwhile and valid as everyone else. We’re all humans who just want to live our daily lives.

In real, not a debate, day to day life, I’m treated at as a women by everyone I encounter - friends, family, work colleagues. No one in real life has ever had a problem with me being trans.

And some other transsexuals on MumsNet seem to just want to throw every other trans person under the bus because they’re understandably scared of their way of life being changed if their rights diminish. Sounds like some have had some terrible gatekeeping experiences in the past but even though waiting lists are long thankfully the standard of treatment and psychotherapy and gatekeeping is more humane now (it’s not perfect).

And what will happen if you throw all your trans siblings under the bus?

Some of the posters on here will still want to take away your rights and force you into third spaces or back into male spaces.

Thankfully politicians and key ministers on all sides of the house seem to be listening to the trans community and allies (as well as major employers).

I’m confident the GRA will be improved and the marginalised lives of trans people will be improved as wider society becomes more accepting and understanding.

Actually coming onto MumsNet for just a week and experiencing opinions here has put my views back into solidarity with my trans brothers and sisters. So thank you for that. I needed the reset.

Peace and love to everyone. But we will continue to peacefully fight for our rights.

Tryingtolisten2
Are you going to try to do that without promoting policies that strip women of their rights, or are women and girls just collateral damage, again?