GRA Reform, Legal Self Declaration, has no effect on access to spaces

[ool0n]

I'm wondering given the recent convincing defeat of gender critical ideology in the high court vs EHRC - if the Mumsnet gender critical people finally accept the fact that having a GRC has no effect on access to spaces?

People on the other side of the debate like myself have been explaining to GC people on Twitter for years that having a GRC has no effect on access to spaces so their objection to GRA reform is/was unfounded. I/we based this on -

1. English government legal analysis that stated having a GRC has no effect on access to spaces
2. Scottish government legal analysis ... ditto ...
3. The EA 2010 and GA 2004 text
4. The practical impossibility that a BC (Not an ID document) could be of any use in deciding access

now we have

1. Gender critical crowdfunded challenge to EHRC guidance that says having a GRC has no effect on access to spaces. Comprehensively lost, not even passed the very low bar to even be considered for a Judicial Review.

Given this is the case will gender critical people be reevaluating their assertion "Self ID", as in GRA Reform, must be opposed as it effects access to spaces? Trans people have always been able to "Self ID", in the colloquial sense, into men's and women's spaces. So making it easier for trans people to change their birth certificates only helps them, has no effect on GC feminists, and/or cisgender women and spaces.

(I also wonder if there'll be any introspection as to why an obviously incorrect interpretation of the law was able to become so prevalent in gender critical circles. Maybe listen to groups outside of GC circles a bit more?)

Any of the trans women who testified at recent GRA injuries?

Assuming you mean "Inquires" then yes we have spoken to some of them as they regularly grace us with their presence here.

Ha! "Inquiries" Hoist with my own petard of pedantry.

"*that thinks if they weaponise their penis it isn't misogyny because they identify as a woman."

I'm sorry, but what? Are you implying that trans women are intrinsically rapists?*

No, @spoonrider . I'm saying actual hate speech like "suck my dick" is weaponising a penis. You know that's a threat of violence, right?

Deliberately trying to misconstrue everything.

The phrase "bring court cases to make life harder for trans people" doesn't seem particularly open to interpretation, but do feel free to explain how it was "misconstrued."

[quote stonecat]@spoonrider

Twitter? Yes. But that's because it's filled with millions of trolls who enjoy stirring shit up. I doubt most who say this are even trans.

Isn't this admitting that there are people out there who legitimately identify as trans and who are increasingly being afforded status that encroaches upon women's rights, but who are basically on the wind up?

The trans umbrella is growing ever wider and proponents of gender fluidity now state that you are a women simply if you say you are a woman. This is surely a slippery slope.

Is there a distinction to be made between those transpeople who go through immense hardship and effort in order to live their lives as though they are the opposite sex to that which they were born, and those people who claim that this effort is not required and any man who proclaims he is a woman is free to present as he pleases and still have the right to access women's spaces.

There's an "it'll never happen" thread here on FWR that catalogues the ever growing number of cases like these, particularly in women's prisons.

Do you think all transpeople are what they say they are? Or are you willing to distance yourself from those who are demanding self-ID be made ever easier to achieve without any requirement for surgery, hormonal treatment etc etc. [/quote]
^

All of this. I wish transwomen who get it and care would speak against it. Some do.

I'm sorry, but what? Are you implying that trans women are intrinsically rapists?

omg I just saw that the accusation of "deliberately trying to misconstrue everything" was right underneath this.

You could try "I am a transwoman and can see that the recent lobbying actions by TRAs is damaging the unspoken acceptance I have been accorded for years"

You seem to have missed to trans sympathetic posts, some by me, here.

You are railing against responses you have elicited, you and A N Other. Maybe you could also say that you appreciate that this may not be the best way of approaching women on one of the few online spaces we have to discuss this from a GC perspective.

Mainly because of all that shit you won't acknowledge as being influential.

@smellycats I take your point but can you also see that defining my identity (wrongly) by calling me ci sis also going to get people on the defensive? Behind this ideology are a massive load of assumptions which most people don't make. The challenge is to find a way forward that works for everyone as much as possible. Not to piss over the rights of a people who have historically, and currently, had their rights pissed over.

Any of the trans women who testified at recent GRA injuries?

There is one such person on this very thread, if you look up ⬆️ There.

So yes. We’re aware.

Have a nice weekend.

Online isn't real life.

You've noticed that, surely?

You must've been living under a rock.

Tell that to J. K. Rowling, one of the richest women in the world, who had to increase her security as a result of 'online' threats, thousands of them.

Or the women at the meeting in Leeds who were surrounded by men slapping the windows of the building they were trying to talk in. Or Maria Mac, who was smacked in the face by a violent transactivist.

Or Julie bindle who was prevented from getting to a meeting by men in masks stopping her, and being lunged at after another meeting by a man who was subsequently arrested.

Or the meeting in London which was surrounded by men yelling burn it down.

Or the women who have had their names, addresses, and their children's schools posted online in a free for all for anyone to threaten them.

I'm afraid even your minimisation isn't going to dent the sides of this.

Actually I think being trans is much more of an issue off line as it is there that the biological males are rallying to compete in female sports and it is there that the women are being made to share biological males in cells.

Most "TRAs" (yeah, we notice how that is deliberately like "MRAs") are thoughtful and compassionate when not being constantly attacked for who they are and accused of trying to invade women's spaces.

So, as long as women do what they're told, TRAs will be thoughtful and compassionate.

Is that not a bit 'now look what you've made me do', though? I've attacked no-one, ever, I've just asked for women to be able to maintain single sex spaces. That's all. Basically you seem to be saying that if women ask for single sex spaces TRAs are justified in threats and abuse.

Have you tried talking to Dr Ruth Pierce? Mallory Moore on twitter?Christine Burns? Any of the trans women who testified at recent GRA injuries? The Gendered Intelligence charity?*

I have heard of some of these people (some of whom have showed themselves as far from compassionate/rational/pleasant, fwiw), but I will have a look at the others, thanks.

There are so many good, thoughtful, intelligent women who are able to discuss these issues at length without ever making any threats or throwing abuse - I'm a bit surprised to have never found equivalents on the 'other side', so it would be good to do so.

bye bye
Go well.

And haven't we shown how tolerant we are?

Not one of us has corrected or reported the repetitive use of 'cis'.

Not that I expect OP to appreciate it!

OP, Sorry, but as the High Court has asserted - you are the one demanding special privileges. To assert single sex spaces can't include people you deem to be the "wrong sex".

I didn't think the judge said that what he termed 'transsexuals' became a different sex. Wasn't it something along the lines that the addition of the gender bit meant that they wanted/should be treated differently from people of their own sex.

The thing is, you can't protect you're sex based rights if your sex doesn't exist right? Sex is SO EASY to change and basically doesn't mean anything anyway. It's just five piddly things that can be altered or 'nulled' and bang! you're a woman.
Sex doesn't exist. Or so I heard. But then, I only have up to a sixth grade understanding of it. Whoops.

Does your gut flora die when you have a heart attack?

so we can't bury people until we've checked their gut flora have died?

crikey. that's going to get complicated