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?)

I know we're supposed to be shamed by your scolding spoonrider but that shit stopped working on us years ago. There's a mass attack on women's boundaries and it has such a toxic character we'd be the biggest mugs ever not to resist it.

I'm still reeling at the implication of alive people identifying as dead. Could I inherit my Mum's house if she identifies as dead?

I am still flabbergasted Spoonrider tells us we are being nasty when the first post here is so gloaty and awful.

And wrong btw.

The GRA is bad law that should be repealed. We should never have written into law that someone has changed sex by getting a new birth certificate when biologically this is impossible. And what is a GRC actually certifying? Gender is a system of stereotypes so you are certifying that you wish to conform to the stereotypes of the opposite sex. Hardly progressive. Then deal with reality - a TW is a man presenting as a woman, a TM a woman presenting as a man. No trans person should be harrassed or abused for their physical presentation. Treating a TW as a woman is not a problem in many situations, but where sex matters, it matters. So require third spaces - happened at my previous employer, no problem. Suggesting that a self identified TW could pass unnoticed in a womans communal changing room is ludicrous. And a self identified TM in a mens communal changing room would be at risk. And making 'passing' the criteria threatens humiliation for all.

Oh I see the point of flounce had already been reached when I posted.

I am so up for the macrame / pub / fluglehorn / cornet outing though, s something good came from this

I'm going to be grinning all night at the idea of dead / alive not being a binary state.

the thinking seems to be if a mistake is made and people think someone is dead that affects whether they're actually dead or not

...maybe. It's pretty hard to tell

I prescribe less foucault and more materialism

Stonecat........Because otherwise, it's just male bodied people (usually) putting on a coat of femininity and saying they're a woman. It needs to be more than that for them, and so sex characteristics themselves are chipped at and undermined to argue that they aren't that important. We had a poster on a few days ago (you'll know the one) genuinely saying that all foetuses start as female with vaginas, that mens penises were just 'outy vaginas' etc. Anything to erode the actual sexual differences and blur the lines between the two.

@sanluca

I am still flabbergasted Spoonrider tells us we are being nasty when the first post here is so gloaty and awful.

And wrong btw.

TRAs are understandably and justifiably nasty because we insist on banging on about single sex spaces and sex based rights.

Apparently.

@TinselAngel

I'm still reeling at the implication of alive people identifying as dead. Could I inherit my Mum's house if she identifies as dead?

I'm still laughing at someone asking if dead people could identify as being alive.

I do wonder what @spoonrider would say to the 11 year old girl who was sexually assaulted by Katie Dolotowski in a women's toilet.

'sorry kid, you're just collateral damage'...?

I'm not qualified to comment on whether Dolotowski is trans or not. But what he WAS, was a man in the women's toilets. And the reason he was there is this idea that men can say they're women and this must be taken seriously.

*@ArabellaScott
TRAs are understandably and justifiably nasty because we insist on banging on about single sex spaces and sex based rights.

Apparently.*

Oh yeah, I've seen that one before, so many times.

I've even seen a rape threat acknowledged by a TRA/ally (because undeniable) but portrayed as coming from a place of love & concern for the woman it was made to. Get your head around that one if you can.

I think Ann Sinnott’s attempt was most useful in highlighting strategy for future attempts.

Repeat after me trans women are NOT men.

Any woman taking their hatred of men out on trans women is NOT a feminist and a poor excuse for a woman.

@AliceToo

Repeat after me trans women are NOT men.

Any woman taking their hatred of men out on trans women is NOT a feminist and a poor excuse for a woman.

@thepuredrop

I think Ann Sinnott’s attempt was most useful in highlighting strategy for future attempts.

Yes. We regroup and we carry on!

@AliceToo

Repeat after me trans women are NOT men.

Any woman taking their hatred of men out on trans women is NOT a feminist and a poor excuse for a woman.

But they're not women either. They're transwomen. Their biological reality and lived experience is not that of a woman. Transwomen are transwomen. There, that wasn't hard, was it?

I think any argument that needs to be prefaced with 'repeat after me' is unlikely to hold up to much scrutiny.

@AliceToo

Repeat after me trans women are NOT men.

Any woman taking their hatred of men out on trans women is NOT a feminist and a poor excuse for a woman.

It's a no from me.

@AliceToo

Repeat after me trans women are NOT men.

Any woman taking their hatred of men out on trans women is NOT a feminist and a poor excuse for a woman.

Repeat after me, transwomen are NOT female.

Any transwoman who refuses to acknowledge what a female is, is not a feminist.

I'm amazed at the gall of the OP to start a deliberately triumphant, goady thread, constantly use the slur cis, tell other posters that they are being mean and then flounce multiple times.

We will never stop fighting for this cause because we have empathy for women and girls and it is just too important.

Repeat after me trans women are NOT men.

Repeat after me: it's not possible to change sex ☺️

Any woman taking their hatred of men out on trans women is NOT a feminist and a poor excuse for a woman

Not your call to decide who is and who isn't a feminist I'm afraid. Also, a woman is a biological sex, not a behaviour. So your use of a poor excuse of a woman makes very little sense. ☺️