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?)

The GRC would mean crimes are recorded as their chosen sex. Not their real one.

Sorry entered too soon. If I’m wrong then I stand corrected but that’s my biggest issue.

Apparently we're all thin-skinned control freaks who've been brainwashed by a cult.

Someone sweetly hopes a few of us can be saved, but the prognosis isn't good.

Hah!

@ProudExclu

The GRC would mean crimes are recorded as their chosen sex. Not their real one.

They already are.

Crimes are recorded by the self declared gender identity of the criminal, no GRC is needed. Women's prisons are already mixed sex. Its changing the recorded crime statistics.

This is happening under a Conservative government.

In terms of using this thread to try to stir up trans activist twitter, this thread gets a D minus.

The most productive engagement is usually when you don't act deceitfully.

The OP's thread both here and twitter just smacks of "oh let's have a good debate, what fun". He has no skin in the game so can score points for oh-so-cleverly catching someone out and making them restate their argument until it is acceptable. He can repost on twitter and laugh at our responses but really it just seems rather pathetic. Women on here are posting because it does affect us, because we know what it is like to grow up female. Our lives have been shaped by being female. For all the sympathy we may have for TW, we know it is not the same - and why would it be? I wouldn't presume to know what it is to be a TW. It would be nice if he could just maybe admit for once that we might not agree but we actually should have the right to assert our own boundaries, our own definitions without having a man come along to tell us that we are wrong. So TW get to decide what it means to be a TW but women don't get to decide what it means to be a woman? There's a word for that.

This is the OP on their very best behaviour. If you check their back catalogue, a bit of googling will help, you'll get a much clearer idea of what they think about women being free to have their own boundaries.

What? I have been wondering recently if that’s the case with my ex. It infuriates me. A woman did not do those things to me. No trans person who knows him will refer to him as a woman either.

@WoolOfBat my ex literally said that to me. I want to point out that I’ve met and spent time with several of these AGP types. I’ve made a living through it. They’re not the same as normal trans people.

Normal trans people admire my style and aesthetic and aspire to learn and grow themselves and apply things from me in their own way. These AGP types fetishise me and women like me who live the life I do and become obsessed. They try to emulate women and trans you tubers/influencers at first but it soon shows through.

@ifIwerenotanandroid

Apparently we're all thin-skinned control freaks who've been brainwashed by a cult.

Someone sweetly hopes a few of us can be saved, but the prognosis isn't good.

Hah!

Well they'll need to bring better arguments.

Considerably better.

I think the current deal is that goady types are free to yoink screenshots from MN to twitter, but it's not ok to reverse the process by re-posting twitter screenshots over here.

Meanwhile, every legal result, however it goes, is more sunlight. We all know how the vast majority of people react when they are presented with the notion of male people in female spaces.

We are going to win the war on that basis. Every time there's more sunlight, there's more WTFing & the discourse moves more into the general arena.

The acid test for me is that if trans activists view the Ann Sinnott hearing as a great victory, then let them trumpet it in front of the general public saying "look general public, the High Court says that any male-bodied person is fully entitled into women's single-sex spaces, simply by virtue of a claimed feminine identity, isn't that just fabulous?"

The fact that they know that this great victory is something to be used out of the gaze of the general public is telling.

”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”

Better tell the BBC a GRC makes no difference;

“A gender recognition certificate is also required to ensure that trans men and women are placed in the single sex services appropriate to their gender if needed, like prisons or rape crisis centres.”

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40709420

The 2004 GRA and the protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’ in the 2010 EA are laws based on gender identity ideology which is sexist and homophobic, both of them and the ideology behind them have caused harm to females, homosexuals (particularly lesbians), children and everyone else in society in a whole host of numerous way, such as; Males claiming they have the ‘right’ to enter female spaces (even when they have their genitals intact). Males claiming they have the ‘right’ for others to refer to them as if they are women and/or lesbians. Males claiming they have the ‘right’ to enter lesbian spaces. No processes to stop men with transvestic fetish, autogynephilia or other dubious motives identifying as women. Inaccurate recording of crimes and other stats about sex. False news reporting about the biological sex of an individual. Dehumanising terms being used to describe people born the female sex to make people who identify as the opposite sex fell better. Males claiming they have the ‘right’ to compete in female sports. The ideology making kids doubt their sex. ‘Transing the gay away’ functioning as gay conversion therapy. People regretting the medical intervention they were given due to this ideology and having to live with the consequences. Therapy to uncover why people identify as the opposite sex and to help people accept themselves as their biological sex facing the threat of being illegal. Everyone being forced to pretend that someone can change sex when this is an ideological belief and a biological impossibility or face sanctions. People being recorded for ‘hate incidences’ for objecting to the ideology or any of the the above. Males issuing threats of rape, violence and death to women objecting to the above. Males playing the victim when females try to assert their boundaries or anyone objects to the above things. Anyone objecting to any of this being vilified as a bigot, ‘transphobic’, etc.

I think the vast majority of people in this country will think these are unreasonable laws, when they understand the extreme detriment to others they have caused, this is why the GRA was sneaked in and the ‘no debate’ stance to self id was adopted by its promoters. We already know most people believe intact males should not be in female spaces, most people are not aware intact males are currently demanding the ‘right’ to enter female spaces, neither are most people aware that heterosexual men identify as lesbian women. How many people do you think want intact heterosexual males who ‘identify’ as women in changing rooms and toilets with their daughters and grand daughters (regardless of how the male is dressed)? I think you will find its not many. The public should be aware of what is happening and what these laws have led to, if people then consider those laws to do more harm than good, people should be free to campaign for their removal, anything less is authoritarian dictatorship.

@Stopthisnow The BBC is wrong then, much like Ann Sinnott, "Women's Place" and "Fair Play for Women" are wrong. The GCs just paid 100K to confirm that fact, as the Judge said - "The Claimants argument is an obvious absurdity"

Is that the judge who thinks TW are indistinguishable from women? He should take a look at the avatars of the respondents on your Twitter thread.

@lonel

The OP's thread both here and twitter just smacks of "oh let's have a good debate, what fun". He has no skin in the game so can score points for oh-so-cleverly catching someone out and making them restate their argument until it is acceptable. He can repost on twitter and laugh at our responses but really it just seems rather pathetic. Women on here are posting because it does affect us, because we know what it is like to grow up female. Our lives have been shaped by being female. For all the sympathy we may have for TW, we know it is not the same - and why would it be? I wouldn't presume to know what it is to be a TW. It would be nice if he could just maybe admit for once that we might not agree but we actually should have the right to assert our own boundaries, our own definitions without having a man come along to tell us that we are wrong. So TW get to decide what it means to be a TW but women don't get to decide what it means to be a woman? There's a word for that.

The whole point of the post is that it doesn't affect you, GRA reform was never going to. The "big lie" of the gender critical movement has been exposed by ... the gender critical movement at a cost of £100K.

Yes I laughed at the ridiculously sexist idea that men and women have such different gaits you can "sex" them from it. I also laughed at the absurd idea that a pile of cremated @oolon atoms has an "immutable sex". Sorry but I may find some of the arguments so daft I'll laugh at them, pretty sure the gender critical people laugh at some of the things trans people and allies say? Why can't it go both ways?

You absolutely have the right to assert your own boundaries, but if those boundaries involve telling marginalised groups of people they can't use public spaces they've always used then that's going to be a problem. One that isn't solved by just pretending the law says what you want it to, as Sinnott found out.

[quote ool0n]@Stopthisnow The BBC is wrong then, much like Ann Sinnott, "Women's Place" and "Fair Play for Women" are wrong. The GCs just paid 100K to confirm that fact, as the Judge said - "The Claimants argument is an obvious absurdity"[/quote]
Judges can be on the wrong side of history too. The suffragettes suffered a similar setback on their road to fairness and justice.

inews.co.uk/news/uk/court-case-legally-denied-women-vote-women-voted-anyway-116375

Chorlton vs Lings effectively set women’s suffrage back a few steps. “What they think is going to be a very easy thing to move their campaign forward ends up with a legal prohibition,” says Prof Cowman. “That means when women are on the register, it becomes a different thing, technically its no longer down to the local returning officer to make a decision.”

The Third Reform Act, 1884, explicitly stated only men could vote. The suffrage campaigners had an even tougher fight on their hands and it would not be until 1918 that women, and not all women at that, would be enfranchised.

But they continued to fight, they were right, and they won.

@unwashedanddazed

Is that the judge who thinks TW are indistinguishable from women? He should take a look at the avatars of the respondents on your Twitter thread.

Why isn't this something gender critical people are appalled by? Attacks on people for the way they look, such as the Chinese cisgender athletes who were called "men" by a subset of GC people for months. Cis women come in all shapes and sizes, with beards, with muscles, tall, short. How does it further the breaking down of gendered stereotypes to mock masculine looking women, be they cis or trans?

This is a thread I link a lot on Twitter, butch women are often abused for looking "male", maybe reinforcing that view isn't a good strategy for a movement that purports to want to break down gendered stereotypes?
twitter.com/kirstylogan/status/1144709581437833217

I saw a video of the Chinese athletes being interviewed, and they totally were men though.

@Blibbyblobby so you think a GRC does have an effect on spaces trans people are allowed to access. Despite the court loss?

Why do you think a comparison with the suffragettes is apt? They were campaigning for rights that women lacked. Regardless of the court decision it's a fact trans men and women have always used the spaces that match their acquired sex. Legally since 1999 by precedent, and encoded in law in 2010, a simple fact way before then as many older trans men and women will attest to.

A large proportion of the gender critical crowd seem determined to take that right away from trans people. One they've had for lifetimes in many cases. That doesn't sound like a victory for social justice, one to be compared to the Suffragette movement to me. You should be able to understand why trans people and allies react so strongly to that attempt to roll back rights?