The problem in a nutshell

[WatchThePotatoesBoil]

For those wondering what all the fuss is over the Government GRA consultation, I tried condensing the whole thing into a single tweet. I decided to post a slightly re-worded version here, because it summarises the problem in a nutshell for those new to this:

Official guidance states that holders of a Gender Recognition Certificate: "Should be treated in their acquired gender for all purposes and therefore should not be excluded from single sex services."

Changing the law to allow anyone to legally declare themselves part of this "no-exclusion" group presents a significant risk to the safety of both women and children.

What about butch women, should they be allowed into your safe spaces?

Yes, because humans recognise sex. Nobody "passes".

@LangCleg that's not true though is it? I've seen plenty of interviews with trans people you would not have known were trans. You're probably already sharing toilets and changing rooms with them without knowing it.

You're probably already sharing toilets and changing rooms with them without knowing it.

No. Humans intuit sex. It's an evolutionary advantage, well studied, beyond doubt and this tired old canard employed by transactivists is nonsense. Women might not say anything but, in almost all cases, they know. Because humans recognise sex.

So a thread that was about "single sex services" (including domestic violence shelters, rape crisis centres, NHS wards, intimate care, and of course prisons) is somehow interpreted by Cholka as being only about toilets and changing rooms. Right.

@Cholka what is your idea of what a trans woman is?

Someone with gender dysphoria? A fetishist? Someone that's had surgery? An occasional Cross-dresser? Someone with a GRC? All of the above?

"Trans" status in this is a red herring... the real issue is MALE status. Any (not all) biological male is a vastly asymmetrical risk to biological females. Existing safeguarding structures are permeable to abuse, yes. But the forthcoming proposals will tear up most of the existing safeguarding. By making safeguarding procedures effectively mixed sex, it ignores and erases the heavily weighted male on female offending patterns. Women will no longer be able to safeguard against and name male sexual abuse. And as males are 98% of offenders, that is highly significant and game changing to the female sex class.

Cholka

Please do not @ me, by the way - it's bad etiquette on here.

You said @VickyEadie so your way of identifying real women is if they look right? What if that pic shows the person after being in police cells overnight and unable to shave? I don't think waving photos around is really the right approach. What about butch women, should they be allowed into your safe spaces? Only if they look womanly enough?

You entirely missed the point, again. The photo is merely to illustrate, in case you aren't aware of Jacinta, that some TWs are - indeed - a threat to women.

So, you might answer the question: Do you believe Jacinta should have full, unfettered access to all women's services and safe spaces or not?

So a thread that was about "single sex services" (including domestic violence shelters, rape crisis centres, NHS wards, intimate care, and of course prisons) is somehow interpreted by Cholka as being only about toilets and changing rooms. Right.

Exactly!
Should a biological male be allowed to compete against biological women in sport (especially contact sports)?
Should a convicted rapist with a fully functioning penis be placed in a female prison simply because they say they are a woman?
Will women have the right to request a woman performs intimate health care procedures?
How will other laws be affected if the definition of woman changes?

This goes far beyond changing rooms.

Changing rooms are only the tip of the iceberg but let's think about them for a minute.

I just think that handful of deviants will unfortunately find ways to be abusive anyway, and should be fully punished for that.

Why do we have to wait like sitting ducks though when we KNOW that unisex facilities are more dangerous for women? www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women/sexual-assault-unisex-changing-rooms-sunday-times-women-risk-a8519086.html

Sexual assault is not just about a "handful" of cases - it is endemic. A handful is too much anyway! Why do you feel that women aren't as deserving of safety as transwomen?

You're probably already sharing toilets and changing rooms with them without knowing it.
I am pragmatic in my approach and I think you are (sometimes) right - so why change the law? If someone really "passes" then they are going to be using the facilites anyway - but why should we let anyone in who happens to "identify" as female? That doesn't make sense.

Should a biological male be allowed to compete against biological women in sport (especially contact sports)? Should a convicted rapist with a fully functioning penis be placed in a female prison simply because they say they are a woman? Will women have the right to request a woman performs intimate health care procedures?
How will other laws be affected if the definition of woman changes?

This goes far beyond changing rooms.

Indeed.

Fascinating that so many current concerns were raised at the time of the original GRA Bill:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3388507-Fascinating-background-on-parliamentary-questions-re-the-original-GRA-bill

cholka
You can't seriously be saying that you're at more risk from a transwoman using a changing room than the transwoman is from going into a men's changing room. Seriously?

First of all, we have to know who we are talking about when we talk about a 'transwoman'. Most transwomen have penises, so we will assume that our hypothetical one does.

If anyone can identify as a transwoman, how do we tell a 'genuine' transwoman from a fake one?

Why is our 'genuine' transwoman at risk in the men's? Remember, this genuine transwoman has a male body, including a penis.

Will women be at risk from fake transwomen in the women's?

Do you see the problem now?

Even if the transwoman is really at risk in with the men, why does it have anything to do with women? It is male-on-male violence.

Even if the transwoman is really at risk in with the men, why does it have anything to do with women? It is male-on-male violence.

And as women keep being told-if anyone does assault you in the toilets then you just need to call the police. Surely the same applies here?

And as women keep being told-if anyone does assault you in the toilets then you just need to call the police. Surely the same applies here?^^

You would think so, really. I think that's a fine solution. So glad we've got that one sorted out.

Pencils

That particular bit of official 'guidance' from EHRC's What equality law means for your business was challenged by Fair Play for Women as it runs counter to the Equality Act. EHRC was supposed to get back to FPFW by last Friday but I don't know if they did.

EHRC just confirmed THEY DID! - new thread here

cholka
You've clearly never worked in child protection or with the victims of DV & sexual abuse.
Do you imagine that predatory men have a code of ethics or are deterred from their end goal by a strong moral compass?
It is extraordinary the lengths some men will go to in order to gain access to women and children.
Changes to the GRA, and the inevitable knock on effect this has for the sex based rights of women everywhere, mean that the meagre safeguards we have in place now will be weakened to the point of total inadequacy.
The 'it happens already' argument is completely fallacious. There is such a thing as a scale of risk, it's not black and white. Think of it like the 'balance of probability'.
I can't believe the naivety of people like you, who refuse to even acknowledge the increased risks.
Engage with the real issue and stop with the 'it's all hysteria' nonsense.

Unfortunately, if there's a man determined to be a sexual predator there's nothing to stop him going in women-only spaces anyway.
Point one. Yes there is. Men seeing him going in will stop him. Because of cultural norms, because they don't want to see him embarrassed/in trouble, because they know he's not meant to be there, because men know what other men are like, etc. Women will tell him to leave. If he's caught in there his intentions are assumed to be malicious. These are safety measures in themselves. The door says "staff only, id passes must be worn", then permission is given to challenge someone unknown not wearing an id pass. People will challenge.

You can't seriously be saying that you're at more risk from a transwoman using a changing room than the transwoman is from going into a men's changing room. Seriously?
Point two. Absolutely 100% saying that. More transwomen murder than are murdered in the UK. Why would other crimes be different? Do we have a large contingent of poverty stricken trans prostitutes being robbed and murdered like in Brazil? Nope. Do we have gangs of violent women looking for a six footer in a wig to beat up? Nope. Are transwomen targeted by fraudsters more often? Nope.
If you're insinuating transwomen are at risk of rape (but never commit it) then I'd have to see some numbers.

Hi all. Just a friendly reminder. Women (and girls too) are allowed to set our own sexual boundaries. This includes deciding who we disrobe in front of, and we allow to disrobe in front of us.

The only people who would object, who would force women and girls to not have sexual boundaries, are abusers.

Nobody is telling trans that they can't get an education, housing, or employment of their choice. So what exactly ARE transpeople campaigning so vigorously for? Well gosh, the right to shower next to a naked woman or little girl who has already said she doesn't want male bodied people anywhere near her.

The only people who would object, who would force women and girls to not have sexual boundaries, are abusers.

This.

When will violent men be called to account for their behaviour?

When will all The Men Who Are Not All Like That step up and be supportive of trans women?