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.

So why do some people place all transsexuals under the same umbrella as dangerous and not allowed to do as they please but if a man wants to train as a midwife, most would have no issue with this?

That is a strawman argument. Nobody would deny them to train as a midwife, as long as the pregnant woman has a right to reject the transwoman because they are male. The problem arises, when a woman, who would be free to reject a man as rape counsillor, midwife... you name it, cannot do so because 'TWAW'. This means subverting reality for the compulsory validation of someone's identity.

So what is the process currently? If a man comes into a women’s toilet, not even claiming to be a transgender person. Say a percent just walks in, what protection is there to say you cannot do this? If we put trans to the side for a moment?

I can ask him to leave, other women will join in, I can also call management and know management will be on the women's side.

i do however think that grouping all people together as one is not healthy

So you don't think that it's a good idea to separate men and women.

Or which men should we take out of the Man Group? Because personally, if I had to chose a subgroup of males to be forced to get naked next to, it would be gay men, not heterosexual transgender men.

So let's do that. Homosexual men (however they identify) are now allowed access to women's spaces.

Now, how shall we police that? Because I have a feeling that some heterosexual men might say "don't worry, I'm gay!" and come in. Don't you?

My only agenda is to educate myself on your views. MN is full of intelligent women, and whilst we’re all in agreement on self ID i wanted to find out more on why for a lot of MN it goes further than that.

I completely understand we should do everything in our power to prevent dangerous predators having easy access to women. But for me personally, I don’t see all trans people as that and would be happy for someone with a GRC to share space.

It's so illogical.

What, please tell me, what is the difference between a man, and a man with a GRC?

I completely understand we should do everything in our power to prevent dangerous predators having easy access to women. But for me personally, I don’t see all trans people as that and would be happy for someone with a GRC to share space.

I don't see all trans people as predators either.

Nor do I see all men as predators.

So how do you think we should keep the predators out?

EarlyWalker, ok, there's a nuance you appear to be missing. I'm not crazy about colluding in the idea that a man is in fact a woman if they really believe they are, so that's one thing, and all the encouragement towards 'tolerance' won't change my feelings on that.

But feelings aside, this is not about lumping all transwomen together as dangerous, any more than it is about suggesting all men are dangerous. If all men were categorically dangerous, we would be entirely right to exclude them from a hell of a lot more than we do.

But as it is a proportion of men, that we cannot identify on sight, are dangerous, so we have specific places and restrictions on where they can go and what they can do. As transwomen are a physical subset of men as a group, and retain as far as we can tell, the same risk factors, they are included in the group that has restricted access.

Most men of my acquaintance are decent sorts, and I probably wouldn't panic if they had to enter a female space as I know them, but other women would have an issue, therefore I don't have the right to override their consent and the decent men of my acquaintance would understand that the boundaries need to be respected because they are decent men.

Does any of that help?

Another vid from Lisa Muggeridge that explains haow abusive and nonabusive relationships cannot coexist. Once one party tries to use violence and coercion to change power relations, the relationship cannot go back to 'normal'. The TRAs tried to subordinate the rights of women, and they were not outliers but broadly and institutionally supported (from Stonewall, to academia...).

What, please tell me, what is the difference between a man, and a man with a GRC?

Someone with a GRC has been medically diagnosed with gender dysphoria, they have lived solely as a women for more than 2 years and plan to continue doing so for the rest of their lives.

Not true. And I will call you out every time you make something up, as this is the third time. My exact statement was - ‘There is so cut off or distinction.. I can’t get my head around the thinking? Men are rapists, and groomers and statistically you’re far more likely to be abused by a man... but we don’t say that men can’t be in positions of trust? Such as teachers or doctors or gynachologists? So why do some people place all transsexuals under the same umbrella as dangerous and not allowed to do as they please’
Please don’t twist things, and make up things in your head. I never said transpeople can’t be teachers.

You are not making any fucking sense. Why did you raise those issues specficially then? Why did you randomly add in a completely irrelevant non-existant issue with regards to positions of trust

You raised a point that has nothing to do with this and has nothing to do with anyone here. Why did you say anything about ‘positions of trust’ then? If you’re not then claiming that people here have said it, what’s the point of inserting it into the conversation? You’re not following any logic whatsoever

Karen Jones, a transwoman, murderer and rapist actually blamed their gender dysphoria for the attempted rape of a woman.

Their psychiatrist blamed it for the killing.

A psychiatrist's report later diagnosing Gender Identity Disorder as a significant factor in Jones' claimed loss of control before the killing.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5440153/amp/Trans-convict-invited-speak-House-Lords.html

Neither gender dysphoria, nor a piece of paper, renders men no risk.

Stop gaslighting women.

deepwatersolo That is a strawman argument EXACTLY!

Someone with a GRC has been medically diagnosed with gender dysphoria, they have lived solely as a women for more than 2 years and plan to continue doing so for the rest of their lives.

None of which is relevant as to whether they are a risk.

I’m not blaming feminists for this! I’m saying that people took advantage of the transgender title, i do however think that grouping all people together as one is not healthy. And that goes for stonewall and those opposing transgender people

Good. Could you show us some links to transactivist fora or pro-Stonewall places you have been talking about this? I'd love to see their reactions to your even-handed critique.

The gaslighting 🤦🏽‍♀️

People with a GRC still retain their genitalia.

What is ‘living as a woman’?

Someone with a GRC has been medically diagnosed with gender dysphoria, they have lived solely as a women for more than 2 years and plan to continue doing so for the rest of their lives.

How is that in any way protective against male violence?

The GRC-process does assess future risk of violence (even assuming that it could be remotely accurate anyway).

Someone with a GRC has been medically diagnosed with gender dysphoria, they have lived solely as a women for more than 2 years and plan to continue doing so for the rest of their lives.

The scarce data available suggest that transition does not change male pattern violence, though. Not even SRS does the trick.

I don’t think there has ever been a way to keep woman safe from all bad people. If there was, rape, domestic abuse, grooming etc would all be non existent. We simply cannot remove all possible ways for women to come to harm - if we could I would jump straight on board with no hesitation!

I don’t think that denying any trans person the right to use the facilities of their desired sex is the way to stop all harm to women. Currently, the amount of women abused in toilets by trans people is incredibly low. If Self ID comes in, I have no doubt this will increase. However, as long as the Self ID doesn’t, I don’t see a problem with those with a GRC using the facilities.

What is the percentage of woman abused by (holding a GRC) in women spaces as opposed to women being abused by women in women’s spaces?

I am trying to understand, I do not want an argument.

The scarce data available suggest that transition does not change male pattern violence, though. Not even SRS does the trick

Which is another concerning thing itself, the lack of data.

It changed for me when I found out that someone with a penis would be able to access female only spaces , win female only awards etc and that I wouid be an evil bigot for saying I was not ok with this.
I don’t believe that Transwomen present any more danger to me than any man and they should be allowed to do any job they choose and are qualified/trained to do but by allowing Transwomen who are biologically Male into our spaces it leaves the door open for any man who wants access
I will also never say they are women, although I am happy to use preferred pronouns and treat Transwomen with the same respect they show me. ( or lack of)

The GRC-process does assess future risk of violence (even assuming that it could be remotely accurate anyway).

How does it do that?

gah does not not does.

Irrelevant anyway for this true believers - men who transition have the same rate& pattern of criminality as those who do not. The inconvenient fact is that the price of paper doesn't change anything other than their ability to access potential victims.

I don’t think that denying any trans person the right to use the facilities of their desired sex is the way to stop all harm to women

That’s not the intention of it! I think most intelligent people understand there isn’t a magic wand that will stop ‘all harm to woman’. It’s about assessing risk and minimising it.

And again, I’ll keep pointing out that women’s comfort and feelings are also valid and we can obviously see they are male and many women aren’t comfortable with that. My teenage daughter isn’t, my elderly mother certainly isn’t, and I am not.

Why aren’t you addressing women’s feelings, along with the safety issue? You’re very involved in respecting the feelings of trans and their need to be validated. But nothing from you about how women are just simply not comfortable around male bodies in intimate spaces.

Currently, the amount of women abused in toilets by trans people is incredibly low

What number is acceptably low? What rate do you think is acceptable in order to protect transgender people’s feelings over our safety exactly?