The GRA reform and women being consulted

[amekyras]

There was literally a consultation. The consultation is still up, I believe. You can go respond to it right now. How can you say women aren't being consulted? And the women's refuges, most of whom already support transgender women, are also fine with it, judging from the responses to the Scottish GRA consultation that have already been published.

A box of cherries sounds a lot healthier than the cereal bar, tbf.

No answer to my questions, I notice, OP.

Here's another one:

In the light of the prison sentence of 22 years given to a child sex abuser who also identifies as a female child in his spare time, do you still think there's 'no risk' to girls and women from self-id?

Cor tetchy tetchy

You hungover too OP?

The 'financial motive' is retaining funding in a sector grossly underfunded.

But, do tell me all about human decency, oh person who has made no comment about the fears of service users of the refuges you talk about in the first post?

But, do tell me all about human decency, oh person who has made no comment about the fears of service users of the refuges you talk about in the first post?

Yes, I'm interested in this - especially in the light of the fact that service users in some women's refuges and hostels have been extremely distressed about it.

Or OP how about the Canadian charmer who wants to use self Id in conjunction with anti discrimination law to take a salon to court for reusing to wax her penis and balls as they don't class that as a 'Brazilian'?

Odd.

It took 3 posts for the OP to get on with making their actual point about how self id will be just fabulous and there will be no unintended consequences whatsoever.

Usually they are keener to re-educate us thicko bigoted bitches faster than that.

We also need to tell people what the reforms will actually do - allow 16 and 17 year olds gender recognition, allow non-binary recognition, and allow Self-ID, which just means that trans people can get a GRC more easily, which simply allows them to change their birth certificate. That's it. Nothing else.

That's it. All it will do is allow everyone to choose their own legal sex, and change their birth certificate accordingly.

All that will do is remove the protected characteristic of sex from the EA, since anyone can choose to be any sex they want to be.

The EA is not being reformed.

But the PC of sex is being removed by being made meaningless.

The posters who start threads essentially saying nothing will change, move on, nothing to see, must think we came down with the last shower.

You have to be incredibly naive not to realise that if self ID enables men to become women at the stroke of a pen and their say so, there is no protection on the basis of sex whatever the EA says.

Trans man with GRC (complete with their 'equipment' as the majority are) will simply say "I'm a woman" and there is bugger all women will be able to do about it. What was once a polite convention in ladies' loos where women turned the other way will become a matter of rights.

What is really worse is that non-trans men who fancy a bit of voyeurism or worse will simply ID as women and there will still be bugger all we can do about it - until after any offence is committed of course.

Won't happen? Won't happen my arse. You only have to read some of the threads on here and media reports about that to see it is already happening. Not to mention "I'm a sex-offending 'woman' so transfer me to the women's prison" etc. Or "I had testosterone blockers, I'll run in the girls' team, because it is absolutely not important that I am 6 ft 3 ins with a bigger heart, bigger lungs and loads longer levers and lots more muscle."

Then there are the DV shelters - let's not even go there...

But hey-ho. You can't argue with stupid.

And as you said before, the vast majority of women in this country don't have a clue and it would take a public information campaign larger than the one used to promote the rights of transgender people over the last ten years before many of them could even begin to understand what has been happening.

Most people trust the government to look things over and not do anything to defy common sense.

Although that is changing since the Brexit debacle.

Women's services have had their funding threatened. Did you miss what happened to Glasgow Rape Crisis?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-45137638

When the services women built and paid for have been taken away, we will go back to square one and build them again.

which just means that trans people can get a GRC more easily, which simply allows them to change their birth certificate.

Just like, if we make some changes, so anyone can get a driving license without going through all the tests, it'll have no effect on road safety, it won't affect the highway code, or the legalities of who can drive a car - you'll still need a license to drive after all.

Oh really good analogy FanWithoutAGuard, like it!

The FPFW overview: fairplayforwomen.com/legal-basics/

Read the Jess Bradley threads, OP.

Read it and absorb it and do some thinking, because this is one of the people who would have access to ALL womens services, in your world. This is a person who I, legally, could not keep out of a rape crisis centre or a woman's refuge, and who I am being told is harmless.

You should be ashamed of yourself, bringing that kind of gaslighting and minimising on here when we've all sat through weeks, months and years of it already. Take your sanctimonious twaddle and serve it on toast.

I suspect op started a thread to reassure lurkers that the regular posters are hysterical bigots all wrong.

It won't work. We see the evidence presented and can make our own minds up.

When the services women built and paid for have been taken away, we will go back to square one and build them again.

Except that we will have no legal basis to keep self-identified women with male bodies and rape weapons out of those places. This legislation is the biggest threat to women's ability to support other women ever. I don't think we've ever before faced a govt wanting to take away our right to free association on the basis of sex.

Oooh look. It's another shut up shut up shut up shut up IVE TOLD YOU TO SHUT UP post.

Wonder why it's so important to stop women having these thoughts, questions and conversations?

Or if the OP spends their life going around the internet putting everyone straight and lecturing them if they're not doing precisely what the OP personally agrees with? Mr Trump? Is that you?

It is true that some organisations are accepting transwomen as women already. This has already caused problems.

For example, New Hall women's prison who accepted a transwomen as a woman. The transwoman sexually assaulted four women almost immediately.

Basic human decency meant this transwoman was rapidly removed from contact with biological women. Tough for the four women assaulted. They cannot be un-assaulted.

This was a self-id case btw. The transfer was made even before self-id is law to be kind to the male prisoner who was self identifying as a woman and had been for two years.

You've obviously been fed some misinformation. Do read up about all the existing cases of harm done to women. There are links to plenty of examples on these boards. Once you start delving in to it, you'll see just how much damage couod be done. Then please come back and tell us about how the reality has changed your thinking.

Tough for the four women assaulted. They cannot be un-assaulted.

This. The point of sex segregation is to prevent males from harming females. These four women, human beings, now live with the memory of a sexual assault and the trauma that will follow the utter terror and helplessness of being locked up with a predatory male from whom they could not escape. It must be worse than attending school with sexual assailants, because a prisoner is in prison with her sexual assailant 24/7, whereas girls are at school for seven hours, five days per week, and have respite at home.

If we had a policy that prisoners were housed by birth sex only, those four women would not have those memories of assault and terror that they will now have to live with.

Nah, they're just "non-men". What do they matter, right?

The GRA was a measure to legally recognise a cohort of no more than 5000 mostly biological men with legal male status who wished to be recognised as legally female, and a primary driver was to avoid allowing same sex marriage becoming inadvertently legal. It was facilitated in essence for male/male relationships to enable a marriage if one became 'female'

It was acknowledged at that time that this was a legal fiction being created, and thought that with such small numbers, the adverse impact of the law validating a legal lie could be kept to a minimum.

I'd say the horse has bolted.

YY Barracker, the law we should have passed in 2004 was the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act, not the GRA. This would have given all same-sex couples the right to wed, not just the ones where one partner has a particular medical diagnosis.

You can always tell a yank, or someone who has spent too much time reading US trans nonsense, by their use of the word “bathroom” .

This consultation should have no less publicity and consideration than the brexit referendum - and ideally much more as that was a fucking shambles. But this selfID, TWAW agenda is much easier to see through once people start to look.

All women should have been given the right and responsibility to vote on this.

No, actually, we shouldn't be having to vote on this. Males cannot become female, or men become women. The end. That some males may wish to 'dress or appear as feminine' is one thing but they do not need to be legally women to do that.

Totally agree re the GRA and how it should have been to allow same sex marriage. We have that now, and so the GRA allowing the legal fiction can be repealed. We can find other ways to accommodate and protect people with unbearable gender dysphoria.