If this thread was started today it would have very different responses

[Earlywalker]

Having a look through old threads, trying to decide where I stand on the GC debate. I’m still solely against Self ID but still have no issues at all with someone holding a GRC under the current criteria accessing facilities of their desired sex. I do not agree with some of the views regarding trans people that are so obvious on here.

Anyway, I came accross this old thread - www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/1591015-Which-toilets-a-F-to-M-transgender-student-should-use?pg=1&order=

And looking at the responses, they are so ‘tolerant’ staying that ‘in the 21st century this should not be an issue’ nearly every response says a transgender person should use their desired facilities and now, over 5 years later.. I believe the responses would be VERY different on mumsnet.

When did it change? Why did GC start objecting to all transpeople using their desired facilities?

Disclaimer - I do NOT want a fight, I want a discussion. Every time I try to discuss I get jumped on by posters, so without saying ‘ladies please be nice’ I will address now that I am not a man, a spy or a TRA.

That discussion is based on a small number of transsexuals committed to living their life in their new gender in every way. Now we have a much larger group of people that have no intention of fitting in as part of the opposite sex and who see it as their right to access female-only spaces no matter what the cost to women. It is the reaction to this new agenda that has caused the pushback against, for want of a better description, genuine transsexuals.

I think people at that time assumed there would be a few sweet confused TW who had had the op wanting to quietly access the facilities in order to help with their mental health issue.

However things have developed since then.

It is clear that a number of predatory men are exploiting this for their own disgusting agenda.

So it is no longer safe for women to allow this.

Yeah, I used to be more tolerant too

Then the whole "good will" thing got co-opted by a new breed of aggressive, mysogynist, penis wielding MEN

Thank you stuntnun

With regards to obtaining a GRC certificate, my understanding is that the minimum requirements to get one (under current law) is that you must have lived as your desired gender for 2 years, intend to live as it for the rest of your life and be diagnosed medically with gender dysphoria. So why are a large proportion of MNers against someone who holds one, being able to access facilities of their desired sex?

When did it change? Why did GC start objecting to all transpeople using their desired facilities?

I think it changed when it became evident that TRAs did not search dialogue but demanded full submission and the full subordination of even womens' perceptions under their ideology. When it became clear that the TRAs just behaved like narcisstic abusers who try to cow women with their threats, it was over.

Can anyone do a link please

Im not very good at them

When did it change? Why did GC start objecting to all transpeople using their desired facilities?

Should also point out that this isnt true

Woukd be better sith some or even most...but its not all GC

Oopsie

See youve used the 'large proportion' phrase in your second post

I would have said yes then, but the Stonewall trans umbrella basically gives access to any one who feels like a woman, ( whatever that means) and having a look at the people who want access to women spaces for example, this Labour women officer

I think the issue is the proposed reforms for self ID which would mean the safeguards you mentioned (a diagnosis, living as other gender) no longer exist. Thwrefore the GRC would really no longer have any meaning and could be used by bad faith actors looking to get into women's spaces for their own nefarious reasons. I've not really seen people against those with a GRC under current law being a problem? I think sometimes in forums what the law currently is and the possible changes get conflated a bit and the discussion is in the present tense about a future potential problem.

Although many organisations are also adopting a self ID policy despite the GRA not changing yet.

Also there has been enormous increases in those claiming to be trans which changes things. They were a tiny population before just trying to live their lives, now there's lot of activists spouting all kinds of awful shit whilst still claiming to be the embattled minority trans people were 5 years ago.

I think for me, the shift happened when I saw pippa bunce getting awards as a woman, despite being a very temporary woman. Also, laurel Hubbard winning weightlifting championships.

A transitioning person trying to pass under the radar is a very different prospect from a pippa bunce or a Laurel Hubbard, when it comes to sharing facilities.

EarlyWalker I have always accepted this as the right thing to do. And although as an older woman I would still happily share facilities with the groups of transsexuals that the GRA tried to address, all the evidence about the flashers, rapists, paedophiles and autogynephiles who currently define themselves as transgender makes me realise that my initial approach was worryingly naive in terms of safeguarding.

So why are a large proportion of MNers against someone who holds one, being able to access facilities of their desired sex?
I don't think there is a large proportion of MNers who object to this (ie under current law you outlined). Most of the concerns being raised are not about public toilets, but other kinds of places where people are naked, sleeping, or where v vulnerable people would expect to have an environment where everyone is of their own sex.

Some facilities, when shared, effectively make them unavailable to women- shortlists, sports, awards, refuges.

When men muscle in on those facilities by 'becoming women', then they lose all credibility and I lose all patience.

So why are a large proportion of MNers against someone who holds one, being able to access facilities of their desired sex?

I was happy to share with GRC-holding transwomen. I had assumed that meant they no longer had a penis, and that they were vulnerable males with gender dysphoria.

But now it's not allowed to be only those who have a GRC. It's every male who says he's female. Toilets, prisons, changing rooms and sports now go on the basis of self declared gender identity, not a GRC.

And now they want to increase the number of GRC holders from 3000 MtF to about 500,000, with their penises, male aggression and entitlement, and hatred of women who disagree with them all on display.

So, sorry, but my answer is now No. They pushed me too far.

Lisa Muggeridge sums it up nicely, e.g. in this video:

Because people have become more informed, and the language and situation have changed. My stance has shifted quite dramatically just over the last 3 months, for example.

I was also fine with the old status quo.

Transactivism has changed beyond recognition. It no longer represents transsexuals with the medical diagnosis of dysmorphia. The groups that it now represents advocate policies that are in direct conflict with female safeguarding.

I stand with transsexual people but cannot support such campaigning. Many transsexual people don't support it either.

When I make myself vulnerable in a confined, private space (toilets, changing rooms), i do so on the basis that i am almost certainly safe from attack. As soon as Male bodied people are free to access that space, then statistically my safety plummets. That isn't a feeling, it's a fact.

Thank you for your responses, they are helpful in helping me understand better.

In terms of the ‘bad’ trans imposters (can’t think of the word) such as the rapists and flashers, do we know if these people have had a diagnosis of gender dysphoria or if they are using the term ‘woman’ and ‘she’ when reporting on them, as already under the SELF ID umbrella, in the sense as that’s what they ask to be called - not that they’ve been diagnosed with gender dysphoria and classed as a transsexual in the medical and currently legal definition?

Gulags, that Stonewall umbrella has a lot to answer for.

We don't know in most cases, and never can know in real life.

I cannot know if the Male looking person coming in to the changing room has a GRC or not. I'm not allowed to ask them. It's a thought crime to wonder.

*And now they want to increase the number of GRC holders from 3000 MtF to about 500,000, with their penises, male aggression and entitlement, and hatred of women who disagree with them all on display.

So, sorry, but my answer is now No. They pushed me too far.*

Yep. Exactly this.

(Bold fail!)

1. most women didn't realise the full implications of the extremist transactivist agenda, or indeed that the extremist transactivist agenda was the one driving public policy change

2. the behaviour of extremist transactivism has been so aggressive and abusive it has managed to radicalise thousands of women, who are now robustly asserting their boundaries and understand that their previous compromises were a one way street