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.

Firstly, currently is it an offence for a male to use woman’s facilities (and visa versa) not even identifying as trans, what would happen if a man went into a ladies bathroom?

No, entering an opposite sex toilet is not specifically against the law. Toilets aren’t usually ‘policed’ by anyone. However, a provider is alliwed to specify (EA exceptions) that a facility like a toilet or changing room is single sex.

so if a GRC ultimately means nothing - in the sense that you’re not allowed to ask for it anyway, what difference is self ID going to make?

It’s generally assumed that it is possible to tell whether somebody is male or female and that nobody tries to ‘fake’ their sex. However, just as we have blue badges to show entitlement to disabled parking spaces and passports to allow us to cross borders, there is no reason that a proof of sex shouldn’t be necessary if it is clear that any system is being abused.

Equally, if a GRC means nothing, why is it necessary?

Surely a predator is still a predator and whether he identifies as a woman or not, he will find his way in if he wants too?

No - that is why there are safe guarding rules and criminal database checks. However abuse by predators is only part of the problem.

I think you are missing the point. There is no reason for anyone to be ‘treated as a woman’ anymore than you should be ‘treating people as disabled’ or ‘treating people as black’. You should treat everyone as a human individual. However sometimes you need to acknowledge differences. Women sometimes need separate services and provisions because of the objective characteristics they share as women, not because of their identity.

I think it's to do with the culture of 'self id', and it's not just about changing rooms. Lots of organisations seem to be pre-emptively bringing in self Id policies (for example the Labour Party and their all women shortlists, or the Girl guides) and there are huge issues with this as we have seen.

Also, currently a very small number of people have a GRC and all of those people will be 'legit' transwomen who, even if they don't pass look like they have taken all the steps to 'live as a woman' (whatever that means). Under self id, a 6ft burly bloke with a beard could walk into the women's and no one would be able to challenge them because it's perfectly possible that they are a 'self identifying transwoman' and it would be transphobic to do so.

Plus their is the issue of privacy laws - currently, if someone has a GRC then only the police and courts can know that they were ever previously a woman. Again hardly anyone has a GRC so this might not be a huge problem, but under self ID......

If you read the Fair Play for Women guidance for the consultation, it sets out all the ways in which self ID could be a potential problem quite clearly. It's not just about toilets and changing rooms.

Surely a predator is still a predator and whether he identifies as a woman or not, he will find his way in if he wants too?

This is not a reason for potentially eroding safeguarding rules around same sex spaces.

We don't say, 'well predators will always find a way so let's not bother with DBS checks' do we?

Earlywalker, if I was feeling generous, I could certainly understand why you are struggling with the concept, because it is a nonsense that an simple bit of administration could be being used to claim that reams of people are ready to do themselves an injury if they don't get it, but we aren't the ones making those claims.

For clarity, no, the framing of Self ID was not so that any Tom, Dick or Harry could have access to women's spaces. It's been framed as the greatest human rights issue of our time that someone is able to be the only arbiter of their own gender, which has been jumbled up with the idea of biological sex. No one else must be able to have a definitive word on that. It's an entirely personal decision, unrelated to mental health, actual testable biology or any of that stuff.

The GRC is homophobic in basis, arising from a time when equal marriage didn't exist and for some people with severe gender dysphoria, it was a helpful compromise to enable them to live peaceful lives.

The world has moved on, and now the need for 'recognition of gender' is pretty much obsolete. Men can marry other men, and women can marry other women etc.

As has been said more times than I've had hot flushes, there was a time when women were politely ok with the situation. But now the transsexuals who just wanted to get along are shouted down and frankly dwarfed in number by the types who cannot but help calling women names and posting pictures of themselves shitting in women's toilets and bullying anyone who dares to question their behaviour or their attempts to ride fought shod over the reasons for sex exemptions that were not supposed to be affected by the original GRC at all.

Self ID obliterates the sex distinction that allows sex exemptions to exist. It's a wholesale cultural change that has already begun with various places acting as though it already existed.

So yeah, big conundrum. What's your solution, given that we've all expended so much energy explaining the issues (again) for you?

Dear OP, you are right, the fact that one cannot ask for a GRC makes the whole affair rather pointless, which is, why the only clean solution is to repeal the GRA, really.
As for the legality of men being in toilets, it is really a matter of social taboo, so that women currently will simply confront men and drive them out, and management will back them. Should any kind of MRA try to sue, I am confident parliament would fix this problem easily, sex being a protected characteristic and all.

Part of the problem is that the existing law is a bit of a mess. Nobody seems to have thought through why sex based segregation is necessary or grappled with the reality that you can’t change sex.

In 2004 the only person most people had heard of who had ‘changed sex’ was Jan Morris and gay marriage didn’t exist. The GRA was a work around that has never made much sense.

Now we have a movement asserting that everyone must legally accept the concept of gender identity. Any dissent is suppressed, but nobody can explain what gender is. For comparison nobody has ever forced me to agree that God exists.

Also I’d just like to say, I’m not trying to change anyone’s views or force you to think differently. We’re all allowed opinions, I just want to work out more about it as I didn’t want to believe that a bunch of woman are just bigots and that there is more to it than that - which of course there is.

Since I keep getting asked, my solution would be firstly, Self ID a HUGE no go. Keep GRCs the same, allow the right to ask for them of course when questioned.

Anyone that holds them can share sex specific spaces of their desired gender.

Anyone that does not hold one but feels using their own sex facilities would damage their mental health can use the disabled facilities and should be given a radar key accordingly, as mental health is of course a form of disability.

In terms of sport, sadly I don’t think there’s an option around that. So I would campaign for a ‘transgender olympics’ or similar.

Prison officers, once holding a GRC again should be able to act as their desired sex, prior to that as their biological sex. If you are uncomfortable with their officer assigned, you always have the right to request a different officer.

Prison services, again specific transgender wings within prisons, I don’t think putting MTF in with males or females is a good idea for safeguarding of the individual and others.

Specific woman’s services such as rape councilling services, domestic abuse etc should be allowed to discriminate based on sex as this would be damaging to a woman.

Ready for you to all pick that apart but as you’ve all shared your views and it’s only fair I share mine.

Anyone that holds them can share sex specific spaces of their desired gender.

The problem here is that you really have to ask why the space has been segregated in the first place, and identify the shared qualities that make it logical to exclude others from that space.

As soon as you look closely at any of this it starts to fall apart.

Yes that one is the tricky one.

After reading another thread on how the government refused to distinguish between sex and gender in the GRA, I think this is where this has all gone wrong - for the act, for women and in the minds of those questioning their 'sex' - except to many it's gender and the word has clearly evolved. Thanks to the refusal to include the definition of sex in the GRA 2004 half of the people involved in this debate think sex is gender and they can truly change it easily.

Let’s not forget that women have been excluded from things on the basis of sex (voting, education) for all sorts of bullshit reasons.

If you are going to exclude anyone from anything, you really need to be able to explain why. You can’t do that if you can’t even define your terms.

Ready for you to all pick that apart

Why would everyone pick it apart

Ive lost count of how many times ive seen posters post similar views

I wanted to pick up a further point from your 'men in positions of trust and authority' argument. It would seem to follow from this that you are saying that, since a proportion of these men will use their positions to harm women, we might as well even things up by allowing women to be harmed everywhere.

Surely the sensible reponse is to say 'let's improve safeguards, oversight - and most of all believe and take seriously people when they complain about a man's behaviour - so that harm by trusted professionals is curtailed'.

You seem to be suggesting that the people unhappy about transwomen accessing women's spaces are not making that case. I don't see that lack. Post-Saville, #metoo (and Shipman) etc, surely everyone is aware and supportive of the need to tighten and enforce safeguards, everywhere?

The only people moving in an anti-safeguarding, libertarian direction are transactivists.

You make a very similar argument when you say that men who want to harm women will find a way in to women's spaces to do that anyway. Well, no, they won't, generally don't and pps have explained repeatedly why that is. Because people, women and men, will uninhibitedly challenge men trying to enter women's spaces. Everyone seeing such an attempt is immediately on alert, noting that 'something's wrong here, what's this bloke up to'. I've seen this happen, with a pissed bloke going into the women's loos met with an immediate, stern 'Hey, this is the ladies!'.

You might indeed just as well say 'well determined paedophiles will get to children anyway, so why bother with gates on schools, or regulating who may enter? Safegaurds and checks are in place because they work. Cultural reinforcement, noticing, challenging or reporting individuals who look like they're in the wrong place, plays a huge part in this.

At the moment, with so few transsexuals, who all make a big effort to look like women, everyone can see that the person, while natally male, is at least a determined cross-dresser, not any old man. Then there's the 'trying to fit in' behaviour.

Of course TRAs want self-ID, because they want rights. The right to enter, the right not to be challenged - and the right to disparage anybody who dares try. They don't want to go to all the effort of trying to fit in, visually, behaviourally, or socially - being aware of others' comfort and preferences and acting to accomodate these, like most women do.

So I'd suggest that answers your 'what's the point of a GRC if they're never shown' question. Those who have them wouldn't generally need to be challenged, because their behaviour would be unlikely to invite challenge.

That doens't mean that some women won't feel uncomfortable that they're present.

The sort of people who want to breach women's boundaries and come into their safe same sex spaces are the sort of people women don't want in there. The more aggressive they are about wanting it, the less women want them there.