Reform of the GRA - can someone answer a question?

[lucydogz]

I'm just going through the Easy Read section. One of the points it makes is that there will be no change to women's - only spaces. So, doesn't that solve many of the issues that have been discussed here?
I'm not being disingenuous, as, until now, I've been strongly opposed to the adoption of Self ID, but would be interested to hear what others say.
Also, my apologies if this has been done to death already.

I had previously said the 'majority' of the public did not have an issue

I would say 82% is a majority. And that was a survey by pink news. Who don't give a fuck about women.

It's bad enough when transctivists talk bollocks, but when it's bollocks that we have spent the best part of a month refuting, and anyone can bloody read, it's unforgivable.

The more outrageous the lie that they can persuade people to believe or force them to speak, the greater the power trip.

I would say 82% is a majority. And that was a survey by pink news. Who don't give a fuck about women.

YY. They literally couldn't spin it any other way other than to wail about transphobia in society.

@BlardyBlar - Amen to that.

I'm not trying derail this thread but I also have a question...so much of the GRA is understandably about MTF trans - does it benefit a FTM trans to use a men's bathroom? I can only think of smaller queues, assuming most men use the urinals, therefore the cubicals are more available and clearly the FTM can't use the urinal... and as the FTM isn't a threat to the men in their using the loo...I can't see this as anything other than a one-way threat/safeguarding issue.

A woman with/without a child in a female loo seeing a man in there = weird at best, dangerous at worst

A man with/without a child in a male loo with a woman in there = weird at worst

So women and children are the only ones here at risk aren't they?

Educate me otherwise, honestly not goady, I welcome a differing opinion or reason.

As far as I can tell, the change to self ID is only of benefit of men who want access to women's spaces. In particular, men who are not really transgender, but would like to pose as women for their own nefarious purposes.

For example: Male prisoners who want to be transferred to women's prisons. Mediocre sportsmen who would prefer to compete against women so that they can win. Men who like to expose themselves to women or who like to watch women getting undressed who would like access to women's changing rooms.

I have asked the people on this thread and others who are in favour of self ID who else will benefit, but so far there has been silence. I must therefore conclude that my assumptions are correct.

F2M regularly use men's toilets.

Hi ArmchairAnnie

Glad you're back. Can you answer my question now?

Who benefits from self ID?

You keep saying it won't have a negative effect on women, and it won't change anything, but if it won't change anything then why change the law?

Someone must benefit from a change in the law, or there is no point in changing it. So who benefits, and in what way will it change their lives?

It's not all about toilets. FTM do not go to men's prisons. Both because it's not considered safe and because they wouldn't want to.

@OldCrone Agreed, Self ID is only a benefit for men who want to appear to be women. Funny that.

I don't see how anyone can see it any other way but I really am trying to see all sides to it.

It's not all about toilets or safe spaces, I agree @Ereshkigal the professional sports and prisons issue clearly affects women but perhaps a smaller group of women (and children).

@ArmchairAnnie why would a mtf not be able to use a male toilet, because it's uncomfortable or dangerous for them?

F2M regularly use men's toilets.

All those at DD's and DS's school use the disabled (which is a whole other thread).

Funny that.

thanks for all your responses (I've NC'ed)
I support self ID for gender, BUT ONLY IF SEX AND GENDER ARE CLEARLY SEPERATED IN LAW (and prisons, refuges etc are divided on birth sex, not chosen gender). Am I right in thinking this lies outside of the GRA Betty. As a separate issue, not covered by any existing legislation - i.e. it has to be addressed on a piecemeal basis, when it crops up?
And - just to confirm - a MTF who has a GRC is officially recorded as being female sex. Is that right?
I hope this isn't too boring, I just want to get my head straight before I do anything else. Having seen the intolerance of TA groups at first hand, I feel instinctively opposed to what they are working towards. But perhaps the main problem, as someone said upthread, is that organisations are not supporting womens-only spaces, in a search for 'inclusivity'.
I will oppose self-id, because I don't believe anyone can change their sex. But the GRA is just a tiny part of a much larger issue, or at least it seems to me.
Thanks for all your responses .

Oh yes, a friend teaches in a college where all the toilets have changed to being for both sexes. No, she doesn't like it, and doesn't like using them. There was no consultation, and she feels that she can't object. And one of the students has decided that they ID as female, but the parents don't approve. So she has to address him as 'she' at school, but remember to send communications home referring to him as 'he'. Crazy world.

I support self ID for gender, BUT ONLY IF SEX AND GENDER ARE CLEARLY SEPERATED IN LAW

The GRA is not really about self ID for gender, it's about changing legal sex. 'Gender' does not exist as a separate entity in law as far as I can tell - the two are conflated in the GRA.

Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/9

thanks crone

I will oppose self-id, because I don't believe anyone can change their sex. But the GRA is just a tiny part of a much larger issue, or at least it seems to me.

Yes, absolutely. We are now having a conversation that should have been had in 2004 and 2010.

thanks to whoever recommended the Julia Norman article to me - very interesting