Guardian today 'Shifting sands;six legal views on the transgender debate''

[mimivanne]

Balanced piece from the Guardian .

Sorry link wouldn't work

www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/19/gender-recognition-act-reforms-six-legal-views-transgender-debate

There are several good viewpoints on there. The TRAs are really not going to like some of them.

What the Rosemarys have suggested is the only sensible solution to this conflict.

However it will not satisfy those TRAs that want to obliterate any evidence of their birth sex.

Ooof!

Stephen Whittle is being deliberately misleading with the numbers quoted - the 5000 people with a GRC are only 2/3rds born male, yet Whittle makes the statistical comparison with ‘5,000 men’

That’s really disingenuous.

Screen shot of Whittle’s comment. Whittle needs to contact the Guardian and ask for a second correction in 2 days...

Whittle’s argument about the offending stats is actually a good argument against self-ID if his stats are correct. The higher numbers of sex offenders wanting to self ID vs have a GRC suggest self-ID would increase the numbers of dangerous males with a GRC

Yes precisely, Redkeyboard. At the moment it is a very tiny number of transsexuals who get a GRC and most will legitimately be transitioning because of experiencing severe distress at their birth sex. They largely won't be predatory men exploiting a loophole (although I still have issues with anyone being able to change their legal sex now, full stop)

Why would we want to open the floodgates and welcome anyone and everyone in?

Whittle’s argument about the offending stats is actually a good argument against self-ID if his stats are correct. The higher numbers of sex offenders wanting to self ID vs have a GRC suggest self-ID would increase the numbers of dangerous males with a GRC

Indeed. Cross dressing (among non-dysphoric men, not transsexuals) is the most common paraphilia in sex offenders. Self-ID literally invites a cohort much more likely to be sex offenders under the trans umbrella. I can't believe that their most prominent activists don't see the danger.

So what we're learning is that even very skilled legal minds massively disagree on this matter. So the law isn't fit for purpose? Why not scrap it and consign it to history start again from scratch?

I cannot see why the GRA is relevant now we have equal marriage and pension age. Why is it not repealed?

It's not only that though is it? These 5,000 GRC holders represent the transsexual, conservative end of the trans spectrum. I cant see them having much in common with the other end, and I find it doubtful that such an extrapolation would hold true.

Someone can no doubt put this better than me.

‘There are 25,000,000 adult males in UK. 14,000 are in prison for sexual crimes. That's 1 male sex offender in every 1800 males. About 3000 male-born people have a GRC.
We’d expect about 2 sex offenders in a group of about 3000 males.

Which is exactly what we see with the group of males getting a GRC.’

(Ie, transwomen with a GRC have the same sex offending rates as other men)

Figures from Dr Nic, slightly paraphrased by me to make it into a whole comment and less of a fragment. I’ve asked her to flag up the ‘mistake’ in Whittle’s figures with The Guardian on my behalf.

See Peter Dunne's agenda which is focussed on extention to children.

Peter Dunne was interviewed on R4 last night suggesting an indepentent legal view.

His is not.

Dunne is a member of TELI and TENI, has co-written article with Tara Hewitt (cofounder of TELI with Jess Bradley etc)

Cross posting as I didn't see this thread when I started mine.

@1954stephen

Apologies for the direct tag (it's considered a bit rude here) edit again

Could you reference the source for your statement that only 2 holders of GRCs have been prosecuted for sexual assault in the past 12 years?

It's this type of data which could alleviate concerns. I can't find it because everything I've read says MtoF holders of GRCS are legally classed as female so will be "hidden" within the statistics for female offences

Can I ask why also the 12 year period? Is it because that's the year the convicted attempted racist won the right to be transferred to the female estate?

Finally, I am surprised that you compared to the cohort of 5000 random men. You must know that the number of transwomen holders of GRCs is somewhere of the region of 3k. Also again I would really like to know the stats which tell you that 20 men out of 5000 over a 12 year period could be expected to convicted of sexual assault (it seems rather high)

Thanks!

These 5,000 GRC holders represent the transsexual, conservative end of the trans spectrum

Jane Fae, Helen Belcher, Paris Lees, Debbie Hayton, India Willoughby etc have all said they don't want / won't have a GRC.

I thought it was interesting that the chosen selection the chosen selection of lawyers had opinions broadly divided by male and females (going by names). Even for professionals it's easier to support a cause that won't affect you.

mobile.twitter.com/fairplaywomen/status/1053243620734713857

Its worth finding out more about each of the lawyers.

Peter Dunne’s viewpoint.

Gosh. What do I say to that that wouldn’t get me banned instantly?

So he wants to create a scenario where children are deemed able to consent to things they can’t consent to now?

How very, very interesting.

R0wantrees I thought India did want does have a grc as it 'completed their journey.' (According to what they said on Victoria Derbyshire today).

Oh oh oh just heard Debbie H is on world at 1 today saying she identifies with rather than as and respects women's boundaries.

To be honest. its difficult to keep up with IW's views. They are very inconsistant and self-serving.

IW really isn't deserving of the media influence they enjoy.

Gosh 14k men imprisoned for sexual assault, I thought it was 4k. Maybe I was thinking of the rape convictions.

I will remember the 1 in 1800 male vs 1 in 200000 female for the next time someone comes out with women do it too.

Oh oh oh just heard Debbie H is on world at 1 today saying she identifies with rather than as and respects women's boundaries.

I hope Debbie Hayton expands on what this means.

I'm a little confused by some things she has said lately.

Excellent that Peter Dunne's views are on record. People will find that piece useful as more information emerges about where this legislation might possibly go next.

I think Peter Dunne is trans. So not objective or independent at all.

Re World at One - I thought it sounded more like Miranda Yardley than Debbie? But could be wrong as didn't hear the introduction.

IW is only about IW.

IW's career has apparently been destroyed as they're now a trans activist.