Brainstorm your ideal outcome

[BarrackerBarmer]

This is what I think a fair society would look like.

1. Repeal the GRA. Noone changes sex, and society shouldn't force people to pretend they can.

1. Create a SEX Recognition Act in its place. Sex is a protected characteristic, we can define and describe it, and we have an obligation to do this in law. We must give it watertight legal protection. Make it unassailable. Outline the same sex rights that are protected.

1. Legally separate terminology -ALL terminology that relates to sex Vs gender.

All legal institutions already recognise the fundamental difference between the two, but currently they rely on deliberate ambiguity and conflation of terms to make two opposing concepts opaque and interchangeable to suit an agenda. This ends. There are legal terms which relate to sex (male/female/man/woman) , and terms which relate to gender (masculine/feminine) and these concepts are not synonymous in law. No crossover of terms. Sex has a legal lexicon, and gender does too. They are not interchangeable. .

1. New legal protections for 'gender expression' such that no discrimination is allowed on the basis of how someone presents themselves. Not protections for 'trans' which should not exist as a legal concept. Protections for male people who present themselves as whatever they perceive their gender to be -feminine, etc. And vice versa.

A person's sex status is immutable. Their gender status - and this is NOT a compulsory characteristic, JUST LIKE RELIGION, is subject to change if wished.

1. 'Grandfathering' of the 5000 already granted a GRC. They have passed through a period of history that endorsed a legal fiction, and they benefitted from it and will continue to do so. But that door is now closed and none will follow. Those people will be the last to be legally recognised as the sex they are not.

That is my desired outcome. What would yours be?

Don't start with the compromise you think society will give you.
Start with how you think things SHOULD be. Uncompromising.

Coming on a mums’ board and asserting that sex is defined by the individual and not clearly observable antenatally in almost all cases is a bit controversial, no?

I knew the sex of my kids before they were born (well, except for my stepdaughter, obviously!)

Randy Cath oh do we really need to mention suicide, its been used so much now as a way to shut down debate it has become a throwaway comment . Maybe male / female wasn't defined in the EA as at the time it was written it clearly meant either biologically male or biologically female. There is no other way to describe male or female without resorting to gendered stereotypes

The EA does not define make and female. I think that was deliberate as that’s a hard definition to get right.

I think it was deliberate because of lobbying by PFC or similar, not because it's a hard definition to get right.

Once again, for the lurkers, rantycath is just wrong.

Sex is very, very easy to ascertain.
It is a biological state, a reproductive class.
Individuals do not decide their sex.
Nor is it assigned.
It is observed and recorded. Usually at birth.
It is immutable. It can never change. Ever.

It isn't hard at all to protect it in law by defining it clearly.
The reason it has never been defined clearly is because it is SO EASY to identify sex that the law has managed to exclude an entire sex from full human rights in every country throughout history. That's how easy it is to know sex.

The oversight in defining sex can and should now be corrected now that the absence of a definition has been exploited by those with an agenda.

We have defined a Cornish pasty in law.

I think we'll manage to define female.

Excluding trans people in the ways proposed here will simply move them from gender identity clinics to mental health clinics and push up the already huge levels of make suicide.

?? No one has suggested preventing people from using gender identity clinics.

@Bettydumonde you should try defining sex. For most purposes how someone looks and presents themselves is what does it.
Chromosomes, sadly, don’t. You’d have to build in exceptions. Various organs don’t do a good job either. Obviously, you don’t stop being a woman if you have hysterectomy. Or a man if you lose your penis in an accident.
There are so many exceptions. I honestly don’t think they could come up with a definition that some smart arse lawyer counts challenge.
So they left it to the individual and society to decide.
Personally, if someone looks and acts like a woman or man, that’s how I treat them.

Please stop @ing me - second request.

(can we take a minute to note that rantycath seems to only be concerned with male suicide? And that was an inadvertent admission of twam? and defining female in law makes women responsible for male suicide, so females must not be allowed their own legal factual definition?)

For most purposes how someone looks and presents themselves is what does it.

That would be gender you're thinking of.

Personally, if someone looks and acts like a woman or man, that’s how I treat them.

And that is how Karen White has repeatedly been given access to vulnerable women in psychiatric units, bail hostels and a prison.

I don’t know why people have got it in their heads that no one gets the chromosomes tested. They do, all the time, as part of other medical care.

I’ve just been through BRCA2 testing - it’s entirely dependent on which of my mum’s two X chromosomes I inherited. They tested my late mum’s tissue, and mine, and my sisters. Now they are searching out my late nana’s blood samples.
When crime scenes test for DNA, they very first thing they deduce is whether the perpetrator is male or female.

It’s really not as complicated as y’all make it out to be. Otherwise the human race woulda died out ages ago.

Behold! In which a celebrity "presents" himself as...well, an idiot mostly.

www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-6151479/Jared-Leto-raises-eyebrows-explicit-T-shirt-emblazoned-list-sexual-positions.html

Very clearly a male one though, no matter how much pink he wears.

No transing of minors; social, medical or otherwise.

Sex is shorthand for reproductive sex. Minors have the right to make it to adulthood without adults damaging their reproductive system.

I’ve said it before, my DOG can tell human males from human females, and she doesn’t give a rats ass about gender presentation.

And again.
Sex is recorded on birth certificates.
Not decided by society or individuals.
'They' didn't 'leave it up to' everyone.

And it isn't down to 'looks' or 'acting', but if it wasn't obvious to everyone how jawdroppingly sexist trans ideology is I'd say that post might help to illuminate.

You're female if you 'look and act like one' despite your penis?

Nope.

What does a woman act like?

@barrackerbarmer according to the Samaritans, males suicide at 3 times the rate of females. Approx 5000 men & 1600 women in UK took their own lives in 2015.
Any suicide is a tragedy.

www.samaritans.org/sites/default/files/kcfinder/files/Suicide_statistics_report_2017_Final%282%29.pdf

Ooh, I rather like Leto’s pink joggers.

I’ve been looking for an upgrade for my ratty old sweatpants (worn at least 70% of the time).

Ok I'm done engaging with the time waster.

Where were we?

We’re listening to Dolly P singing ‘Stairway to Heaven’ and eating toast on the ‘Transgender’ thread.

Sex is not defined by legislation, it is covered by common law. The GRA doesn’t change the common law position, it just modifies it in the case of individuals with gender dysphoria who take the necessary steps under the Act.

With regard to Human Rights, we would certainly need to check that the proposal is in line with the case law, which I have not (yet) read.

As for the idea that sex is defined by how you look...

My ideal outcome is true gender equality, such that natal women:
have full control over their reproductive rights and breastfeeding;
are safe in the company of men;
are represented satisfactorily in positions of power;
are taken seriously and paid equally in the workplace;
are supported equitably in domestic labour;
are free from sexual violence, FGM, prostitution,
etc.
Once all that has been achieved, sex will no longer need to be a protected characteristic, and (except maybe in sport), natal males can be accepted in all female spaces, if they want, because in doing so, they won't be taking anything from us.

So if someone looks male that's how you treat them? It's always the butch lesbians that seem to cop it in the trans arguments. Please tell - what does male and what does female look like Rantycath

Excluding trans people in the ways proposed here will simply move them from gender identity clinics to mental health clinics and push up the already huge levels of male suicide.

The underlining and the typo correction are mine.

So, RantyCath, it may have been a Freudian slip but you acknowledge that transwomen are men. Sex matters.

Nothing in what's been suggested affects gender clinics for adults. Though I am totally baffled by the insistence from TRAs that being trans isn't a mental illness. Because it definitely isn't a physical illness. So if it's not an illness of any kind, what is the NHS doing treating it?

Mixed sex facilities - which is what you're pushing for - have been proved to be more dangerous for women and girls. Born male? There are already facilities for your sex. Use those.

So glad it's British bake off tonight for a bit of light relief