Confused - Need Clarification

[chickenshaslikklambbhuna]

This morning I read the paragraph below , written by someone who is well known and fighting against self id & it has confused me.

"The equality act is already self-identification. So trans people can already self declare themselves trans. The gender recognition act is assessed and they want this to also be self ID. The difference being that a trans person could then not just self ID as trans but also as actually female."

I do get that many female spaces are already governed by taboo rather than law. I think what I want to know is. If I found Dick or Dicketta in my communal changing room (it has no cubicles) is this lawful now?

The paragraph in quotes above make it sound like the virtual self id that we have now, means that in reality we have very few truly female spaces in law. Is it true that the only spaces we could ever hope to protect would be very limited to refuges, prisons, rape crisis centres? Could Dick in the FPFW video already access those spaces now if he wanted?

The newly updated ICD-11 diagnosis of 'gender incongruence' specifically excludes paraphilic disorders. The paraphilic disorders include: 6D30 Exhibitionistic disorder; 6D31 Voyeuristic disorder; 6D32 Pedophilic disorder; 6D33 Coercive sexual sadism disorder; 6D34 Frotteuristic disorder; 6D35 Other paraphilic disorder involving non-consenting individuals.

Removing the requirement for a diagnosis removes the opportunity to screen out individuals who exhibit these paraphilias. This is extremely dangerous for women and girls, who vanishingly rarely exhibit paraphilias themselves.

A blogger who's sadly gone private found this, and it really is the perfect response to the "simple administrative change" bollocks.

vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/imagecomics/images/0/09/Lying_Cat_Saga_001.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20150328025426

Getting back on topic, as well as the GRA consultation, there is a consultation on enforcement of the EA and the role of EHRC. There was some interesting oral evidence given last Wednesday on the single sex exceptions and the GRA.

Relevant video clips here and here.

Full video

Full transcript

The trouble is I have heard so many different interpretations, from highly respected legal people, of when the exceptions can be used, how they should be applied and what, if any, difference a GRC makes.

There's no legal consensus, there's no case law and the guidance is shit.

AngryAttack lol! That was not what I was expecting.

Oopster you really can't say that you've been using spaces for years with no issue. Perhaps no issue for you but who knows for women?

I have one friend who encountered female penis in a changing room locally. Friend has experienced severe childhood sexual assault (but I should point out prior assault is not a requirement to wish for penis free spaces). The gym wouldn't support her, so she can't use it now. Neither can her children.

I also vaguely know a Muslim woman who has had to self exclude after penis in the women only swimming sessions.

Women self excluding from opportunities to exercise is a BIG deal. It is to me. The gym is a huge part of my life and keeps me physically and mentally well.

In either of the cases above I bet the penis owner thinks that they have used female spaces with no issues too.

A big problem is basically the same one we had with the brexit referendum. People saying what will happen without the authority, knowledge etc of how things will actually work. We still can’t decide what it was we voted for, and then we get these experts interpreting the result to suit their ideas of what they want or what they think we want.

I can’t say if enough, but the proposed changes to the grc will simply be administrative. No pervy man is going to go out of their way to get a certificate so they can be pervy men in women’s spaces. I personally have my NI card in my name, drivers licence, rent, tv licence, bills, doctors note all in my name as it is now. Is a pervy man going to do all that? I don’t think so.

In the first year I transitioned, I encountered a fair amount of ignorance. Now, I just head to the loo when I need to. When I go to the gym, I’ve changed already and just need to change shoes and put my stuff in the lockers. You shouldn’t really be looking at people’s genitals when you’re in a changing room should you? Someone who’s genuinely trans, will not want others seeing what they have if it’s not what others would expect to see there. If someone goes in and is waving their bits about, that’s not acceptable behaviour for anyone is it.

Oopster possibly not to get into gym changing rooms but it will generally affect cultural norms and taboos that police changing rooms.

I would wager a pervy man WOULD do those things if meant he could gain access to children or women in prisons.

You don't need to wave your bits about to draw attention to the fact you have a penis.

I try not to look at women and their bits in a changing room but it is inevitable. It's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

"No pervy man is going to go out of their way to get a certificate so they can be pervy men in women’s spaces."

^Already happening in prisons...

And yes I would say if you've been convicted of a sex crime, that makes you truly "pervy".

There’s a video online from a few years ago about a transgirl getting beaten up by 2 other girls in a McDonald’s, and no one stepped in to help.

I've seen that video and I seem to remember there was no evidence it was because the person was an MTF. And it was an adult, not a "transgirl".

Women are less safe with males in our spaces than males are in their same sex spaces.

Sigh. So Muslim women, women of any other faith incompatible with sharing spaces with male bodies, women who have been sexually assaulted, raped, traumatised and can't tolerate male bodies in personal spaces, and women who just plain don't want to and aren't comfortable need to keep their heads down, not look and shut up?

No.

This is the bottom line of the problem. Men defining who they are, what they are, what women are, what women may have, what women may mind about, where women's boundaries may be, and what women's interests may be recognised and accepted. (Clue: the ones that in no way get in the way of any male agendas.)

This is a brilliant illustration of why the answer has to be no and the total lack of awareness or respect for women, women's needs, women's feelings, women's issues. Letting the initial 5000 have the legal right has turned out to be a massive mistake for women.

How many times have we read about people being attacked and receiving no help from the public? I don't see why the focus is on the victim being trans, as the reason and not self preservation/cowardice.

• 'Trans is not an illness'. So the reason we were expected to be kind and budge up in the first place has also gone. I can't see any reason why I should now be kind and budge up for some random bloke who's decided he's entitled to women's spaces, services and opportunities because he has a 'gender identity'. That sounds dangerous and unfair to me.

This.

Knickknack agreed, I started from a point of empathy for oopster but moved away from that now. Not once has there been a concession or attempt to acknowledge impact on women & girls. Every response has focused on oopster's own experience. If oopster has avoided uncomfortable situations it's for their own self preservation not for the comfort of others - based on what I've read here.

I have every empathy for oopster and every support for people to present however they choose free of gender expectations, harassment or discrimination, and to have their identity as a transwomen or a transman recorded the same way as someone settled in their identity as a man or woman has it recorded. Be yourself That's great.

But women's spaces are for women. Men can never become women. And this legal illusion that they can has been forced way past the point where women can or should tolerate it, and where women are being driven out of public spaces and deprived of a voice to protest about it because the men are inevitably more powerful. (Hence why women needed protected spaces in the first place.) Additional spaces are needed for the comfort, privacy and dignity of everyone, alongside sex protected spaces. Everyone has rights.

Yes you are right. I do have empathy. I shouldn't have said that. I think I meant to say 'I am irritated by Oopster's apparent lack of empathy.' It doesn't mean I should lose my own.

I know what you meant, Warm . Looking back at those two posts, to what extent have we both just demonstrated female socialisation?

'I am annoyed by your total lack of interest in women's needs, feelings, rights and being relegated to a position of such unimportance instead of recognised as stakeholders..... but I'll qualify quick with x and x in case anyone needs soothing that I'm not being kind enough while I defend my rights!'

Oh dear. Minefield, isn't it?

Anyone who reads the threads on FWR knows that there are very many women who are Not Okay with males using female changing rooms.

There are males who do it anyway, despite knowing that it makes women distressed.

Sometimes these males say “I don’t care if it makes you distressed, I’m going to continue to do it anyway”, but most of the time they don’t use those words, because they know that makes them look awful.

Instead they try to minimise and shame the distressed women by saying things like “you shouldn’t be looking” and “trans people are not a threat to you” to argue against women’s distress, as if it were possible to admonish women into comfort and acceptance.

It isn’t. Women are not comfortable and they don’t accept males in their spaces. We do not consent, and they do it anyway.

It isn’t. Women are not comfortable and they don’t accept males in their spaces. We do not consent, and they do it anyway.

YY. And they say things like this:

We’re alreasy using the single sex facilities that you’re worried about with little or no issue.

So dismissive of women's concerns and feelings.

We’re alreasy using the single sex facilities that you’re worried about with little or no issue.

YY

There is an issue. There is an issue because I have just told you there is an issue- we don’t want you to use these facilities. Now that you know there is an issue, will you stop?

oppster WELL I find it impossible to keep personal information, like my sex, to myself, mores the pity because if I could have hidden it over the years my life would have been much easier. Why should you be allowed to hide your sex when I can not?

Since when can we not use the term TIM?

WickedLazy, that's been the case since the newspeak rules were introduced. I think it's a mix of Tim being a man's name, and AWAs not permitting any reference to transwomen being men, male, etc. See also the current gunning for 'male bodied' which is my preferred term displayed in the Guardian article telling the UK Guardian staff off for being transphobic.