'Polarised' debate on gender recognition is harming UK, says equalities chief

[MondayYogurt]

Observer article www.theguardian.com/society/2020/aug/08/polarised-debate-on-gender-recognition-is-harming-uk-says-equalities-chief

The departing chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission has said the polarising debate around transgender rights will be damaging to the country if it continues.
In his final interview, David Isaac, who left his position on Saturday after more than four years in post, urged supporters and opponents of gender self-identification to recognise that they had much in common.

There was also a bit about the ideology being a colonising land grab.

Not sure where I'm up to on strikes, so just know that it's best not to say 'bloody', call important men 'mate', or speak out about homophobia, sexism or colonialist attitudes with respect to gender ideology, especially if you've had two strikes already.

Former Chair of Stonewall says that women need to be nicer to men, in completely unbiased intervention.
All these women wanting single sex prisons are a real threat to society, you know.

I’m on two strikes also for no reason. One for using a phrase which isn’t banned. I think we need a thread on this issue separately.

I think it should be made clear if some opinions, as well as phrases, are strike-worthy.

Fwiw, the conflict of rights is an issue of resources, which makes it analogous to colonialism for me. A group of people coming from the outside to take women's resources eg places on all women shortlists. I think that's a reasonable opinion, but Mumsnet may disagree. Either way, I'd like to know if indeed, it was that opinion which was 'uncivil'. It's certainly not a sweet pov, but it's not beyond the pale.

There was a thread started a while ago www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3699888-Civility-reasonableness-and-those-rules

Much in common? There's no debate here. As far as I'm concerned those who seek to break down safeguarding for children and appropriate women's rights and sexed based provisions have nothing in common with me. There is no debate or discussion to be had with them. Women's rights are not men's rights and never will be. And anyone who seeks to breakdown safeguarding rules for children should go to bloomin' prison. No debate. No compromise.

We just need to pin these people down. In the inevitable eventuality of gender theory colliding with reality, people who advocated for such social and cultural changes need to be held accountable and liable.

People need to realise that theoretical and ideological positions can have real life consequences.

@Packingsoapandwater

We just need to pin these people down. In the inevitable eventuality of gender theory colliding with reality, people who advocated for such social and cultural changes need to be held accountable and liable.

People need to realise that theoretical and ideological positions can have real life consequences.

When you dehumanise women, those consequences don't matter. It's the get out of jail free card for men who claim to love equality. They don't have to take women, the support humans, seriously.

The existing GRA states.

"Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes FOR ALL PURPOSES the acquired gender."

A new birth certificate is issued. Forcibly checking somebodys biology is not going to happen. Trans people exist. Get over it.

The equalities act also makes it clear that sex is different to gender, and that sometimes sex and gender have to be treated separately

Sex is not gender and sometimes that difference matters and it is legal to have that distinction

@Gottalife -you need to look at the rest of the Gender Recognition Act where it then lists a bunch of exceptions to 'for all purposes'. Section 12 says a gender recognition certificate doesn't affect your status as mother or father of a child. Section 13 and 14says a GRC doesn't affect succession, wills, or peerages.Section 19 carves out a massive exception for women's sports. It also doesn't affect foreign marriage laws, and it doesn't affect sex specific criminal offences. So it doesn't really begin to look like they are woman 'for all purposes'. It begins to look an awful lot like a legal fiction.

So the common factor of the proposed grouping is now whether they have been physically abused and are fearful and anxious?

Absolutely.

Also, no f**ing use if you aren't getting a promotion because you are 34 and everyone thinks you are about to have a baby, or if you are 80 and don't have much of a pension because you had children before maternity pay existed or if you are 40 and you have been forced to give up work because you have a lower salary due to 3 x maternity leave and somebody needs to look after the children.

Trans people exist. Get over it.

Absolutely.

And people who need specific rights and protections because their sex is female exist. Some of these people do not identify as female. They still need sex based rights. Get over it.

What OvaHere said, upthread. He talks about hate crimes from both sides, but there's no such thing as a hate crime against a woman - we aren't protected by that legislation.

If we were, the state knows the doors and windows would cave in with the avalanche of cases. 🤷🏼‍♀️

Well hell if I'd known about the job prospect a bit earlier than today I would have applied. I got few of the required skills, I'm shit at being nice to people in real life and I'm a sarcastic witch but I bet I'd do a better job than the outgoing man.

[quote WeeBisom]@Gottalife -you need to look at the rest of the Gender Recognition Act where it then lists a bunch of exceptions to 'for all purposes'. Section 12 says a gender recognition certificate doesn't affect your status as mother or father of a child. Section 13 and 14says a GRC doesn't affect succession, wills, or peerages.Section 19 carves out a massive exception for women's sports. It also doesn't affect foreign marriage laws, and it doesn't affect sex specific criminal offences. So it doesn't really begin to look like they are woman 'for all purposes'. It begins to look an awful lot like a legal fiction.[/quote]
The only sex specific criminal offence is rape and for that you have to have a penis.
In practice a lot of the exceptions can only be enforced by an intrusive physical examination and all the outrage that could cause. Hence there are a lot of "stealth" trans people.

Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes FOR ALL PURPOSES the acquired gender

You change your gender all you like sweetie - nobody knows what the fuck it means anyway.

Just for the record though, you cannot change your sex. Nobody can.

Imagine being a white man and taking the job of equalities chief. What a creep.

@Gottalife

The existing GRA states.

"Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes FOR ALL PURPOSES the acquired gender."

A new birth certificate is issued. Forcibly checking somebodys biology is not going to happen. Trans people exist. Get over it.

You have quoted only part of section 9 of the Gender Recognition Act and omitted s9(3) "Subsection (1) is subject to provision made by this Act or any other enactment or any subordinate legislation" . This means that it is subject to a number of exceptions in the same Act and other Acts including the Equality Act

When you dehumanise women, those consequences don't matter. It's the get out of jail free card for men who claim to love equality. They don't have to take women, the support humans, seriously.

Oh, it will matter when it starts to inconvenience them: for example, when their elderly mothers have to go on mixed sex wards and cannot be guaranteed female carers for intimate tasks.

Then they will make a big noisy fuss about it and demand that "Something must be done!"

“Hence there are a lot of "stealth" trans people”

If there are lots of trans people concealing their sex in situations that involve inheritances, the criminal justice system and sport, they are breaking the law.

However, I think this is unlikely.

Imagine being a white man and taking the job of equalities chief. What a creep

He's jewish - does that qualify him?

Also, should it be necessary, you don’t need to do an intrusive physical examination to get information on sex.

[quote WeeBisom]@Gottalife -you need to look at the rest of the Gender Recognition Act where it then lists a bunch of exceptions to 'for all purposes'. Section 12 says a gender recognition certificate doesn't affect your status as mother or father of a child. Section 13 and 14says a GRC doesn't affect succession, wills, or peerages.Section 19 carves out a massive exception for women's sports. It also doesn't affect foreign marriage laws, and it doesn't affect sex specific criminal offences. So it doesn't really begin to look like they are woman 'for all purposes'. It begins to look an awful lot like a legal fiction.[/quote]
Yes and I'm sure I read that the GRA exemptions around succession and peerages affect trans men (female to male transitioners) not trans women (male to female transitioners), don't they?

That really pisses me off, the blatant discrimination against trans men.

@aliasundercover

Imagine being a white man and taking the job of equalities chief. What a creep

He's jewish - does that qualify him?

Personally I think a WASP with some integrity, pragmatism, and a good understanding of the issues would be fine too.