GRA

[TheTamingOfTheresa]

Had big row with DH who insists proposed GRA reworking is perfectly acceptable and simply makes life easier for Trans people with no unacceptable impact on women . I think he’s read Stonewall’s website . I’m not clued up enough to argue with him. How do I explain the problems it will create for women? Are there any good accessible links?

Ask him how he would feel if his mum/sister was were forced to have their intimite care provided by someone who was a woman in self declared identity only

Ask him why he (suddenly?) has an opinion on this at all.

And please ask him to point to a single sentence in JK Rowling's essay that he thinks is hatred or bigotry.

oh and show him a picture of Gabrielle Ludwig and laurel Hubbard and ask of he truly thinks that's fair

Oh and for a really interesting conversation please ask him to define the word woman without using the word woman.

He couldn’t come up with any legitimate criticism of JK’s piece but says “ she’s a very clever woman “ and claims she deliberately released her stuff to coincide with her new book coming out (!) also said she’d deliberately released it to coincide with pride month....

OP, if a man is in position of gender recognition certificate he is legally female.

That means he has the protected characteristic of sex, and the comparator is other women.

Without a GRC, the comparator is other men.

So, for instance, any man with a GRC automatically gets transferred to a female prison. Because they could claim discrimination on the basis of sex, if they don't.

The proposed changes mean that any man could get a GRC, by filling out a form on the Internet and sending off a cheque.

Currently, there is criteria. You have to have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and have lived 'in role' for two years.

Thanks for the contributions; this is really helpful x

I would also ask why women being raped in prison by a male is something he doesn't seem an "unacceptable" consequence.

I find that truly disturbing

Ask him what makes sport fair, should men and women play on the same team? What would that look like?

One of Stonewall's proposals is to remove the entitlement to single-sex spaces, seen in the screenshot.

98% of sex crimes are committed by men. 85,000 women and girls a year are raped in England and Wales, and most of us have been sexually assaulted and harassed in public, I'm sure. Quite a lot of men really enjoy committing sexual crimes against women. Reporting and prosecutions for these crimes is disgustingly low, and yet organisations are already allowing males into women's safe spaces, and in some cases, turning women's spaces gender neutral while leaving the men's as men's

There's also a stat about the majority of changing room sexual assaults taking places in gender neutral ones, despite the majority of changing rooms being split.

I think as well 1 in 50 male criminals now identifies as trans. We've already had a male rapist place in a women's prison, with entirely predictable results. See Karen White.

Women shouldn't have to put up with men in their spaces, no matter what that man identifies as.

I honestly did attach the screenshot but apparently it didn't send

WPUK and Fair Play for Women published extensive guidance during the GRA consultation. You could start there.

Or you could point your husband to the "Break it down for me" thread. It's probably the best place to start if he is so uninformed that he can envisage some impact on women but sees it as 'acceptable'? I just can't imagine any decent man reading that thread and still insisting that it's okay.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3145470-Break-it-down-for-me

Is he aware that the vast majority of trans women (I believe it is estimated at over 98%) have penises?
fairplayforwomen.com/penis/

How does he feel about that, especially in the context of of the points made by PPs regarding automatic entitlement to all women's sex-based rights, such as safe spaces, prisons, refuge services, and given the stats regarding male sexual violence against women?

Does he believe that there is no historical evidence of predatory men deliberately placing themselves in positions within the church, within youth organisations, within sports coaching, in order to gain access to vulnerable people?

Does he think that it is reasonable that a young girl on a guide camp should be forced into a situation where her intimate care e.g. bathing, sleeping space, is overseen by an adult transwoman with a penis, and that neither the girl nor her parents should have any right to even question this? Does he feel that the fact that transwomen with penises are insisting on their right to have charge of young girls in this context without proper oversight does not raise any alarm bells whatsoever?

Does he understand that one of the six cornerstones of safeguarding is prevention - the act of stopping abuse before it happens?

OP, A lot of men, and indeed a lot of women, don't really understand the huge disparity between men and women, in terms of crime.

Men commit 98% of all sex offences. And 90% of all violent crime.

A man with a GRC would be quite hard to exclude from, for instance, becoming a rape crisis counsellor. On the basis of sex discrimination, if he had a GRC.

It can be done, but it's a lot more tricky.

A man took Vancouver rape refuge to court in a case lasting 20 years, because he wanted to be a rape crisis counsellor and listen to women talk about their rape. It almost cost them their existence.

We currently have equality laws that mean a person can change gender and they must not be discriminated against on that basis. Furthermore must not be discriminated against on the basis that they might be even thinking about changing gender.

So, for example, if a man turns up to work in a dress, he can't be fired.

Trans people are already protected by law.

What the proposed changes meant was that women's rights would be rolled back, not trans rights.

The right to protection on the basis of sex should be, funnily enough, on the basis of sex!

Eg, there are very few instances where all women shortlists are legal. One of them is in government representation, because of the sexist environment and the lack of female representation in parliament.

It's only right that women are fully represented.

So all women shortlists were implemented, on a temporary and limited basis, to encourage women into Parliament. Now, an all women shortlist could be made up entirely of biological males, and still be completely legal.

A company could say they have ticked all the diversity boxes, by having a fair gender split on the board, which could be made up entirely of biological men.

And, crucially, it would be completely legal.

What the proposed changes meant was that any man, irrespective of whether or not he had gender dysphoria, could change sex. Legally.

Without being able to define sex, you can't define sexism.

It's unsurprising that many men don't grasp it. Or even if they do grasp it, don't really care.

It's unsurprising that many men don't grasp it. Or even if they do grasp it, don't really care.

Yep.

It is also worth considering that this Wonderland in which science is dispensed with in favour of ideology, and where debate is labelled hate, has implications for society that goes far beyond the issues of women's vs trans rights.

"First they came for the socialists..."