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.

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 reason this doesn't work is because you're not allowed to ask to see a GRC. It's illegal. It's outing.

There are only 5000 people with a GRC. If you had to flash your ID, before entering the loos, hardly anyone would even notice because the number is so small.

However, as long as the Self ID doesn’t, I don’t see a problem with those with a GRC using the facilities.

There is no way of telling. Zero. And no-one will ever, ever agree to flashing ID. You can't. It's a direct violation of their human rights to a private life.

There is no way of telling. Zero. And no-one will ever, ever agree to flashing ID. You can't. It's a direct violation of their human rights to a private life

Exactly. Also, we can’t expect young girls to request such ID from males. Remember those 13 year old girls who chased Eddie Izzard out of a female bathroom after he got changed in there? He called them bigots.

OP, I'll repeat:

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.

Because otherwise, I'm going to assume this thread will follow the same tired pattern of "just asking an innocent question" through all the canard transactivist talking points to you getting angry and flouncing off to ice a cake. And, since we all do that every day around here, it's just too boring for me to bother with again.

So again: when you pose these questions to Stonewall-supporting fora, what sort of reaction do you get? Could you show us some links?

Could you show us some links to transactivist fora or pro-Stonewall places you have been talking about this?

This is why people have no given up trying to get involved in this debate. I came here for education, to get involved but I can’t even ask questions without being accused of all sorts

Stop gaslighting

How am I gaslighting? I said on another FWR thread that telling me I agree with abuse of and hate women because of my views was gaslighting, I was bombarded with ‘you don’t know what gaslighting is! You can’t say that some people have been abused how insensitive’ so I’ve finally worked out the FWR definition, is it when people have a different point of view to you?

How is that in any way protective against male violence?

A GRC will not erase all risk of male violance, however it will minimise it. We can not erase all risk of violence to women. As a class group that was once (and still is in many ways) repressed, I don’t think repressing another to ensure absolute certainty of protection is the way to go.

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 you know this is an emotive issue for gc women here because you have discussed it here more than once and yet you 'do NOT want a fight'. That does sound a lot like 'ladies please be nice'. Because a lot of us here (not all) feel sold out and unprotected we may get angry about it. There may be some disagreement too because despite the 'MN hive mind/echo chamber' trope we are individuals who each bring our own lived experience to the table and have our own opinions.

But of course if there wasn't such a serious problem with male violence we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

The harm is perpetuating the lie that it is possible to change sex.

I feel that Germaine Bunbury may have previously addressed many of the points that Early is raising...

Picklemepopcorn Some facilities, when shared, effectively make them unavailable to women- shortlists, sports, awards, refuges. This is an excellent point.

We have found out more about the beliefs which underpin the demand to use facilities of the chosen sex. What we are being asked to believe is, well just not believable. For example:

• All trans women ARE women because they believe they are

• If someone comes out as a trans man, they have always been a man, even when we knew them as a happy little girl, or when they gave birth. They were a boy/man.

• Everyone has an individual gender identity, innate and internal, but unconnected to the sex of their body. This part of a person's sense of self should be given special status by the law.

• Sex (the fact of being male or female) is a cultural construct, or it is a spectrum not a binary, or otherwise it is irrelevant to whether someone is a man or a woman.

These things are magical thinking. We are being asked to believe them and to say out loud that they are untrue is transphobic.

As that became gradually clearer and clearer, people started changing their opinion.

How will it minimise it?

No part of the GRC process has anything to do with the risk of violence.

It is not a consideration.

Are you one of those people who believe “I identify as a woman” is an incantation which results in a magical transformation & rebirth?

Why did GC start objecting to all transwomen using their desired facilities?
Why did Stonewall decide to include cross dressers, autogynephilic males, and people such as Karen White, under the description of transwomen?
The answer to the second question should lead to the answer to the first, in a quite straightforward and logical manner.

I wonder, op, if you see the point in sex segregation in the first place?

Men as a class are a threat to women. We can't tell beforehand which ones specifically are a threat. Therefore, in vulnerable situations, where there is no other gatekeeping, we keep them all out. For teaching and midwifery etc, there is other gatekeeping in place. (As a former teacher and a woman, I was very much encouraged never to be alone with a student and had to keep the door open if such a situation ever arose.)

We keep men out through social convention - if a man tries to enter a women's changing room everyone knows something's up and tries to stop him. Allowing some men in because they have a grc makes this social gatekeeping impossible because no one is going to check the certificates of every person going into a toilet, changing room etc.

I'm sorry to hear you were assaulted by a woman. This is no reason for a race to the bottom and to do away with current protections.

To the OP, my ex-boyfriend likes to dress in women's knickers and bras and be humiliated. That's the only way he gets off. He also watches extreme porn. His fantasies include being seen and humiliated by women in women's spaces. This would give him a sexual thrill.

I don't want men like him to be able to exploit a loophole in the law to access vulnerable women who haven't consented to be part of someone else's sexual kink.

It's not repressing another group. It's continuing to restrict a group known to be a risk factor. Because the idea that "You can't ever stop all cases of abuse so just adjust your clear 'no' a little, to be kind" is really, really stupid.

I'm sorry you feel that the work women are doing here to explain the issues to you is not adequate, but it has been discussed quite comprehensively already.

Some people pose a risk to me, some people don’t. When I am in a situation where I have to assess how at risk I am from a stranger my thought process goes like this

• are they male?
• are they drunk?
• are we alone?
• can I escape?

Does this stranger male have a GRC is not a factor because it does not reduce risk.

I was typing away when you made your interesting point there AAK. Might go off and do some reading instead now.

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?

See, sensible safeguarding would collect data and evaluate on that, but there are no data because all statistics treat transwomen with a GRC s women.
Scientific data strongly indicate transwomen, even with SRS, show male pattern violence. So I really cannot see your point, unless if you oppose any segregation by sex or gender.

I don’t think repressing another to ensure absolute certainty of protection is the way to go

Transwomen are not oppressed because we won’t let them in women’s spaces. That is a preposterous suggestion. They are sex separated spaces. Failure to validate a belief someone else holds, that humans can change sex, is not a form of oppression. To compare it to the historical oppression of women, the commodification of our bodies throughout history, is really insulting.

AAK, you have raised an excellent point.

Could you clarify if you support sex segregation?

Yes, I think Bunbury has assessed this again and again, really. I'm not entirely convinced by the repeated insistence that the OP is 'against self ID' either, tbh. I'm fairly sure that said OP has already been in FWR threads making the AWA case before now, so this really does look like a bit of a bait and switch, and "Please educate me, I just don't understand" is coming across as a bit of an attempt to elicit emotional labour from the women here.

IMO.

Just to clarify that reform of the GRA will make no change to use of single-sex spaces. Single-sex space is protected by the Equality Act (2010) and reform of the GRA does not affect any of the provisions of the Equality Act. As far as entitlement to use of single-sex space is concerned, nothing will change from how it is today.

I've always been fond of Bunbury's foundational text "If you're in need of tutoring my rate is 30 pounds an hour".

I've always been fond of Bunbury's foundational text "If you're in need of tutoring my rate is 30 pounds an hour".

😂😂

As far as entitlement to use of single-sex space is concerned, nothing will change from how it is today.

Indeed, just as NHS wards, by policy, haven't been single sex for years. It was just slipped through under everybody's radar, accompanied by a deliberately misleading government statement on it (there is a thread on here about it). And just like the Karen Whites of this world get access to vulnerable women and children in prison now already....
And this precisely why many MNers believe that abstaining from further GRA-changes does not go far enough, but want to go further.
It is a very logical stance, when you think it through.

AAK, I could so need it. See, I have read it all, I understand it, but I still have not managed to internalize Bunbury's philosophy to the point where I can fully live by its rules.