Is it really all that bad?

[Notevenmyrealname]

I was having a conversation today with a friend who works in HR and is very clued up on the law and equality issues and he was saying that most of the scare stories about transgender stuff are a storm in a teacup. Realistically nobody is going to allow a small group of militant trans activists to remove women’s rights. All the updated GRA will do will allow people who need it a slightly less hassle way to change their gender officially and as it affects such a small number of people (supposedly 1% of the population) it’s really not going to have a massive impact on the vast majority of people. There are no plans to change the Equality Act of 2010, so sex will still be a protected category.
I’ve been trying to read up on lots of stuff over the last month or so and, I have to be honest, really scared myself - particularly reading all the BS spouted by Mermaids. The thought that those people are let loose in schools peddling their pseudoscience to teachers is awful, but again my friend thinks the stuff that gets reported in newspapers is always the worst of the worst as they just want clicks on their pages and I shouldn’t get myself wound up.
I’m actually going to give myself a break from all this over the next few weeks as it’s really getting to me but I was wondering if anyone else thought maybe things won’t be as bad as all the worst case scenarios that are discussed on these boards?
I’m still very much of the belief that gender identity and biological sex are separate things and I think if something could be put in law that makes that distinction clear, surely everything would be fine. Stupid ideology like the crap pushed by Mermaids and the like will be found out eventually and it’s just because they’re riding the wave with the GRA consultation having happened so recently. Teachers are regularly updated on safeguarding and the secrecy aspect would only apply if they thought the child was in actual danger (he gave the example of an extremely religious family who might try taking their child abroad to marry them off or worse, they were from a culture that commit “honour” killings).
Please reassure me that these worst case scenarios are unlikely to happen, or is my friend actually oblivious to very real dangers if these changes go through?

I’d tell him about the 11 year old girl who was traumatised by the 14 year old trans girl masterbating in the school girls changing room. School said there was nothing they could do and the girls mother was called a transphobe on social media for complaining

Where did this happen? A school would not tolerate a boy masturbating in public in the boys' gym or a girl masturbating in public in the girls' gym. It is irrelevant what sex or gender the person claims to be- it is still indecent behaviour.

Yes, this. ^

Oh, wasn‘t that the case pointed out to that one politician, who then wormed her way out with the ‚peer on peer‘ assault gimmick instead of acknowledging it was a male on female assault? Just looked it up. Stella Creasy was confronted with it on Twitter.

Not sure what you mean by ‚a school would never tolerate this‘. It is not like they have a squad team in the changing room to prevent this plus a high resolution camera plus biometrics to unambigously document arousal levels plus their source (all the men I know say erections can happen randomly at times. Will transgirls be punished for that as soon as girls are present?)

The school said sorry. The mother confronted Stella Creasy on Twitter. Creasy called it peer on peer assault. She said the girl could have counselling. The mother said, I don't want counselling for her, I want you to tell me how this can be prevented.

Creasy couldn't.

Trouble is, the GRA 2004 tells us that a man with a GRC is now legally and to all intents and purposes a woman.

Is that really the big issue though ? Under 4000 people in nearly 15 years have a GRC and obviously there will be those within that who have left the country or died so what are we talking..... 1 in 15,000 people max. Can you honestly that before TG nonsense you ever noticed a TS person ?

Stonewall say they anticipate 500,000 people with GRC under new changes. A factor of 12500% increase.

Honestly and I know many will disagree but I think it will be necessary to concede access to TS people as per EA and GRC. It's already laid down in law and it's a small number. By revoking access , quite understandably, it is used as a weapon to paint women as grossly unreasonable and uncaring. Laws are easily added to but rarely are they revoked. One need only look at some of the bizarre laws that still exist for hundreds of years ago that make absolutely no sense!

This has all become a game sadly. Many have suggested that sexual dominance plays a big part in modern ideology. I believe that is indeed true. Therefore when women get so angry and upset (rightly so) with the situation it send out the wrong message.... the message that women are scared and worried for their safety. When someone says "I want to dominate you" and what they are hearing back is "please dont you're scaring me" is that not a reinforcement ? When women send out the message "we object to the EA and GRC because women weren't consulted and we didn't give permission " then once again what is heard is that men were able to dominate and women were submissive.

So what is the solution. The head and the heart disagree on this but I have to go with my head. We absolutely fight against childhood brainwashing by mermaids - it's about safeguarding. We equally fight again self id and demedicalisation.
However we reluctantly accept / tolerate / honour system sharing spaces with TS people as we have done for decades; we show empathy for those with GD in transition. We stand alongside TS and argue for increased medicalisation and psychiatric and psychological support.

We work to stop gender stereotyping and stop linking genitalia to our likes and dislikes. Last week when Christmas shopping for my daughter I was still faced with science sets that were "for boys" and craft activities that were clearly only "for girls".

stop linking genitalia to our likes and dislikes

concede access to TS people as per EA and GRC

What the actual fucking fuck?

Never.

Laws are easily added to but rarely are they revoked.

Oh dear. Equal pay laws, property laws, mortgage rules, credit card rules, rape within marriage law, education law, sex discrimination law etc.

All these required current law to be changed. By women.

Allowing a subset of men to access women's rights, but not the rest of men, is utterly unworkable.

The answer is no.

I know many will disagree but I think it will be necessary to concede access to TS people as per EA and GRC.

No. EqA is a hopeless piece of legislation all-round for all the protected characteristics, and is due for updating as per the recent government consultation. When it is, the conflation of sex and gender needs to be removed, women's rights reinstated and gender reassignment rights and protections need to be distinct from women's rights and protections. Many of us will be fighting for this.

Yes, we may need to grandfather rights given to current GRC holders, but that's all.

*stop linking genitalia to our likes and dislikes

concede access to TS people as per EA and GRC

What the actual fucking fuck?

Never.*

You have taken individual sentences out of a larger response. You omit my reasons and arguments.

On the first thing do you really agree that you can equate contents of knickers to social activities and preferences ? You're a woman so you can't play football, be an engineer, enjoy science etc.. these stereotypes have held people back for centuries. It is these stereotypes that create transgender. You're a girl who likes football....oh then you're trans. If there were no stereotypes you can't be trans because you aren't breaking a stereotype!

As to the second point see my whole point - this is about being smarter and not sending out a message that reinforces that men are being dominating. The EA is already in place and reality is that at this time if you refuse access to a TS person you would be the one in trouble. Not saying it's right or wrong just that's how it us. I do think we need to accept that for now. There are simply too many battles to fight and we can't fight them all at once.

Yes, we may need to grandfather rights given to current GRC holders, but that's all.

Are we not saying the same thing essentially ?

As I said we need to look at how we educate children against gender stereotyping and increase medicalisation of TS. I see the number of people with a GRC decreasing in the future to even less than the 300 a year it is now.

I do think though we have to, however reluctantly, accept a certain number of TS people who already have transitioned.

Its unworkable as you cannot legally ask a man if he has a GRC or not, so it opens them up to all men. Its already dangerous to challenge men in public which is why the majority of women don't.

Stop worrying about the message women are sending out, and worry about what women need to say.
Women only spaces and services are for women.

Are we not saying the same thing essentially ?

No. We aren't. You're saying laws are immutable. I'm saying if the current law fails to protect women, we should campaign and lobby so that it does (especially at a time when the current law is under review).

You also seem to be saying that accurately describing male behaviour and exercise of privilege is a bad idea. Which is.... odd?

As to the second point see my whole point - this is about being smarter and not sending out a message that reinforces that men are being dominating.

Why is it smart to not mention when men are being dominating?

Indeed the testosterone levels are so ludicrous they are many times higher than what most TS who have had GRS routinely achieve. It is about 20 times my own level of T, let alone any actual women's levels. Pretty obviously that alone shows this as nonsense and pretty obviously there is no fairness at all for women here.

It's laughable, isn't it? "Well, I mean, it's lower than in most men, so who cares if it's exponentially higher than the female norm?"

And that's before we even get into all the other physical advantages that we're supposed to ignore, because look, testosterone slightly lower than most men!

When someone says "I want to dominate you" and what they are hearing back is "please dont you're scaring me" is that not a reinforcement ? When women send out the message "we object to the EA and GRC because women weren't consulted and we didn't give permission " then once again what is heard is that men were able to dominate and women were submissive.

So, what, women who're scared just stiff upper lip their way through it, and that will make the bullies playing domination games back off? All evidence points to that's a pretty terrible strategy.

Is that really the big issue though ? Under 4000 people in nearly 15 years have a GRC and obviously there will be those within that who have left the country or died so what are we talking.....

I'm not sure how much you know about the GRA and EA. But it's not just 4000 people. Lots of transgender people, like Debbie Hayton and Jane Fae, talk about not needing a GRC to access women's spaces and just rely on the EA and basically not being challenged.

Also, when faced with a male transperson in what is expected to be a female only space, a grc may not make a vulnerable woman or girl feel secure. Especially when there is no way of knowing that the person actually has a grc.

Especially when there is no way of knowing that the person actually has a grc.

And you're not allowed to ask.

No, we shouldn’t “have to” accept this. The law needs to be changed to protect women’s rights, We need to lobby, email, talk about this with our friends and colleagues, re-educate those brainwashed by the trans cult if need be.
Accepting a small cohort inevitably means accepting all those under the transgender umbrella. No thanks, third space/ third gender ( or however many genders you care to imagine) but only two sexes.

Women have had our rights taken away by the sleight of hand and emotional manipulation perpetrated by a handful of extremely selfish, uncaring, non-empathetic transactivists with new links to perpetrators of vouyerism, rape and child abuse emerging every five seconds.

The manipulation and lies that got us here need to be exposed and women's hard won rights which are lost must be reinstated.

WeRiseUp

Nailed it.

The short answer is: Yes, it is that bad. Actually, it's worse. Educate yourself, dear.

(That was advice for OP and her friend!)

Accepting a small cohort inevitably means accepting all those under the transgender umbrella.

Yes. 100 years ago, women who wore trousers would have been included in Stonewall’s definition of trans. I think this is why a lot of people (including my friend) don’t really think it’s a big problem, they don’t appreciate the full extent of the proposed changes. I didn’t until recently.

If there were no stereotypes you can’t be trans because you aren’t breaking a stereotype.

This is why I hate Mermaids and all those other organisations getting into schools. They shouldn’t be allowed to push the idea that if you don’t conform, your body is wrong, not the stereotype. A big issue for me is that many of the more right-wing commentators are critical of transgender rights but then publish stories about male and female brains being hard-wired the next day. The whole thing is so confused.

The short answer is: Yes, it is that bad. Actually, it's worse. Educate yourself, dear.

No, really, thank you, dear, for not reading any of my subsequent posts and just going right into patronising mode.

No! Surely not! That doesn't sound like a man at all

I wish I’d been a bit more ambiguous about the fact that my friend is male. He obviously is going to have a different perspective than a woman but he’s not some over-privileged walking male stereotype. I was expecting posters on this board to be a little more nuanced in their thinking rather than going straight for the “typical man” trope.

Many of his female colleagues are also fairly complacent, and up until recently, I had no idea of the implications. I was unaware of the GRA consultation until after it happened and had never heard about Mermaids or Allsorts until about a month ago. My concern was that maybe I’ve been on a rapid learning curve and living in a bit of a bubble or echo chamber and that there was a possibility that dwelling on the worst case scenarios all the time could have skewed my thinking. I don’t think it is a bad thing to challenge your own perceptions every once in a while.

Thank you for those posters who have answered in the spirit of my original post and haven’t either patronised me or made derogatory comments about my friend.

No, really, thank you, dear, for not reading any of my subsequent posts and just going right into patronising mode.

It was a joke parodying what transactivists say.

Sorry! Should have been clearer.