The biggest GRA issue with 'the public'

[FusionChefGeoff]

As I see it, is that the vast majority of Joe Public have no concept of the trans umbrella and that 80-90% (or whatever the stat) retain their penis.

I really think every public campaign / appearance needs to focus on this.

A huge number of TWAW allies are labouring under the old definition of transgender - assume TW have transitioned with full surgery - and I would bet my bottom dollar would do a swift about turn when they realised the new reality.

So many typos!!

For those people who think that trans women are women. What is a trans woman???

AAK - that's a big problem with DH. He keeps repeating 'yes, but that won't be allowed to happen, someone would stop it'!!!

Oh, and on that thought - DBS checks - would it be part of the new dystopian reality that TW could legally NOT declare their previous name??

Oh yes and this, I thought it was about sexual orientation, I thought it was gay men who transitioned. I did not know that its mostly straight.

Also cotton ceiling blew my head up.

www.spso.org.uk/decision-reports/2018/september/decision-report-201605709-201605709

I wonder if there could be a new sticker woman sticker with "85% transwomen keep their penis"...

Not quite as punchy though.

Maybe a graphic with a figure to represent transwomen as a whole and two different colors shaded in to indicate the percentage who've had genital surgery versus the percentage who have not.

FusionChef
Ask your husband who he thinks will stop it? Bearing in mind if self ID happens there will be nothing to stop?
The 'policing' of things like toilets, changing rooms, etc is done really by the individual - you choose where you go. If you take away those 'rules' anyone can go anywhere.

Also, further to my question above, can anyone give me the source for the stat that 80-85% of trans women have no intention of having their penises removed?

Even after the Consultation finishes, we must keep buggering on!!!

This.

drum123

It comes from research by pro-trans lobby group GIRES. Here is the FPFW analysis:

fairplayforwomen.com/penis/

Completely agree. The idea that a man who says he is trans and has a penis and is still attracted to females is well under most peoples radar and needs to be one of the main focuses of any campaign.

Maybe?

Self identification is a much bigger issue than just trans purple being able to access single seed spaces. What it means is that ANY man can identify as a woman and enter women's spaces.
Yes.

Hi I'm Dave. I was abusive and domestically violent to my partner and I'm she's now in a women's refuge terrified of me. I have no feelings of dysphoria but would love to remind Katie that she can't escape from me and nowhere is safe so I'll turn up at the refuge, self identify myself as a woman, tell them my name is Davina, I need access because I'm fleeing a violent partner and then I shall sit waiting for her to see me.

Hi I am Mike. Like Dave I have no feelings of dysphoria so are not trans in the sense that most people have traditionally understood it. The thing is I love waving my Willy around women and making them feel uncomfortable. If I do it in a street then I get locked up. But I shall self ID as a woman, walk into open women's changing rooms and wander around butt naked showing my dick to the world.

Any sensible trans person would have an issue with these situations being permissible.

As with so much of the TRA agenda, it isn't about helping trans people. It's about ensuring men can do what they want when they want and stopping women having an opinion.

Years back I was a pharmaceutical rep and we were told that 'painting patient pictures' was a good way of engaging the GPs in the products and in some ways it is the same here.

I spoke to my SIL about the GRA reforms and she didn't seem to get how bad things are. So a couple of weeks later I asked her husband what he thought about it all. SIL hadn't mentioned it to her husband, but he totally got why this is a bad idea when I pointed out that his sporty daughter could potentially be changing with and competing against boys if this goes through and that piqued his interest. Added to that the girl guides and him not wanting his daughter to share a tent with a boy and I had him onside, asking me to send a link to the consultation. Which I did, along with what turned out to be a long email highlighting some of the names and issues that crop up here with links to newspaper articles etc. He gets it.

So that is the approach I will be taking from here on in - your daughter / sister / mother all risk losing rights if this goes through as per what is laid out in the consultation. Making it personal might help those who are not sure how they feel about it realise that far from just being an admin exercise that only affects the supposedly tiny (but exponentially growing) of trans people, this affects everyone.

An idea..

Making it personal might help those who are not sure how they feel about it realise that far from just being an admin exercise that only affects the supposedly tiny (but exponentially growing) of trans people, this affects everyone.

This is what is important. Many people's thinking doesn't extend beyond the stereotype of a vulnerable trans person at odds with their sexed body every day of their life. And who would deny someone who was truly dysphoric from easing that pain?

But when they realise the extent of it, who is encompasses and the implications for society and not a tiny number of individuals, they begin to see it differently.

NewWomensMovement

You've got me thinking about my old job again when we had glossy 'detail pieces' to talk about and then leave with the GPs. I can imagine your cartoon as the skirt wearing figures and the question 'How many Transwomen keep their penises?' on the front and then a slide to reveal the 8 of your 10 hiding theirs under their skirts.

Stonewall trans advisory group

OOOp, sorry, wrong thread!

drum

Sorry, NOT wrong thread. Link to Stonewall
above

Because I read these boards a lot, I tend to ask relevant questions at work or ask for clarification on policies. Because of this people see me as the person who is interested in the rights of trans people, which I am. And also in the rights of women, which I guess they would also assume. Someone came and told me about reading an article about a trans prisoner, saying, ‘its as though they think only men can pose a risk, when I’m sure there are lots of horribly violent women and of course it would need to be risk assessed on a case by case basis; and that trans prisoner might be at risk in the male estate.’ I smiled and agreed and then a conversation followed - about the relative rates of male and female sexual and violent offences; about the process of self identification and the recent high profile prison transitioners; about whether its ok to expect things like strip searches which are usually conducted by someone of the same sex, to be conducted by females on male bodied sex offenders; wondering what made someone a woman - of course they shouldn’t have to shave their beard, should they? Or wear a skirt, lots of women don’t; surely they can dress as they wish, as can men. They shouldn’t be expected to have surgery if its not the right thing for them. These questions appeared to provoke quite a lot of cognitive dissonance. I saved womens sport for another occasion, that it would be to the detriment of a keen athletic trans boy to compete as a man, as his times would be unlikely to rank.

"'yes, but that won't be allowed to happen, someone would stop it"

This is a problem.

People can't believe that what is happening is real, they think that feminists / some women must have misunderstood, as somehow some kind of "mechanisms" would not allow it.

What mechanisms? Lots of changes have been made quietly and over a period of years - we have seen that it was deliberate to quietly go and talk to govt orgs etc and get policies and laws changed without any noise so no-onw would notice and say "hold on".

Now poeple are noticing and saying "hold on" but it's BEEN DONE >> men in women's prisons, men in women's hosp wards, boys and men in GG, men in top shop changing rooms, men in the women's ponds @ hampstead. men inisisting that they will do the smear and to say no is transphobic...

Multiple orgs ALREADY have self ID with NO GRC in their policies.Schools. Councils. Political parties. etc.

Turning it back is much harder than stopping it in the first place and this is why it's really quite scary that certain activists have been doing this over the last decade, putting it all in place, getting into charities, schools, everything. This is not paranoia - the policy documents and results can be seen by anyone and I've seen the writing from the poeple saying this was the plan. SW.

There are no "mechanisms", there's just us, gradually discovering the places where changes that put women and girls at risk have already been made and trying to get those changes reversed before any more women and girls are hurt.

The other disturbing thing is when you think about male v femle spaces

Male only spaces that women wanted into were to do with sports / business / networking / earning ptential. We were locked out of power, not allowed to compete in certain sports, disbarred from politics etc

Female only spaces that men want into are to do with safety and privacy & to do with having things when they already have their own. Prisons, hosp wards, changing, sports, womens awards etc

It's a totally different dynamic.