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?)

@WoolOfBat

I really think this is so sad.

Most people out there don’t know that transwomen in 90% of the cases keeps their penises. And that many are attracted to women. That is something we need a huge amount of sunlight on.

The fact some post here and appears to enjoy the thought of these people with penises in female spaces will hopefully make more women realise what’s going on.

This is an utterly disingenuous figure, the largest survey of trans people showed the vast majority have surgery/take HRT or intend to. The US Trans Survey, where getting such care is extremely expensive, so not intending to could just mean can't afford to. This "90%" figure was invented by taking bad stats on how many surgeries there have been, then taking a massively high estimate of trans people overall - including non-binary people who are the vast majority of trans people - and pretending they are all "trans women"

You can read it here - transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/usts/USTS-Full-Report-Dec17.pdf

This sort of stigmatising lie, that most trans women are "fake" somehow as they don't want surgery is why people think poorly of the gender critical movement.

Fairplay For Women
(extract)
"How many transgender people medically transition?
In 2011, GIRES estimated that only 20% of the UK transgender population were likely to seek medical treatment for their condition at some stage. Based on a UK trans prevalence of 1% and assuming a 50:50 split of males and females that means there are 200,000 male-born transgender people in the UK will no body modifications whatsoever. Of the 50,000 trans-identifying males that do seek medical treatment most of these would be expected to be undergoing hormone treatment and/or breast implants. Only a very small proportion of this 20% will have genital reconstruction surgery.

In 2016, a meta-analysis of 27 studies estimated a rate of approx 10 per 100,000 of the population (0.01%) have a transgender diagnosis and/or surgical or hormonal treatment. In contrast 355 per 100,000 of the population(0.35%) self-identity as transgender. This means only 2.8% of the transgender community is undergoing any gender-affirming treatment with the vast majority 97.2% simply self-identity with no modifications to their sexed body whatsoever.

No one knows for sure how many transwomen keep their penis, but there are fewer than 10 surgeons in the UK who can undertake the relevant operation. Even if they each performed one operation every single day this would still only represent an absolute maximum of 3,500 surgeries each year. The actual number performed is likely to be very much smaller than this. An estimate of just a few hundred operations each year would not be unreasonable.

There is also data available from the US HERE showing that genital surgery is very rare. In this study (sampling 20% of all outpatient hospital discharges in the US) there were only a few hundred genital surgeries performed each year. (205 in 2012, 250 in 2013, 345 in 2014). This suggests that between 1000-2000 genital surgeries were performed across the whole of the US each. If the trans community in the US represents 1% of the US population this means we’d expect there to be in the region of 3 million people identifying as trans in the US. This means less than 0.1% of the trans community undergoes genital surgery each year supporting our conclusion that the vast majority of males who identify as women retain their penis."
fairplayforwomen.com/penis/

most trans women are "fake"

They're not 'fake', they're just not women.

'take HRT or intend to' - this is meaningless.

Oh! I don't think anyone would suggest that it is not true that almost all transwomen have some surgery.

But that wasn't what the poster you are replying to suggested.

... or intend to, of course!

the vast majority 97.2% simply self-identity with no modifications to their sexed body whatsoever

thanks, R0, for useful statistics.

I laughed at 'intend to'. I always intend to on a diet...

Regardless of cross sex hormones or surgery, sex is immutable.

It isn't 'HRT' if the prescription is for cross-sex hormones for specific side effects such as gynecomastia for male patients.

www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/gynecomastia/symptoms-causes/syc-20351793

@ool0n I'll repost my question because you seem to have missed it.

Would you be happy for your daughter to go into a public toilet if you had just seen a man walk in or would you be worried for her safety? If not, why not?

The standard reminder. If the discussion is about surgeries, it would be more good to know what kind of surgeries they are, whether it's more cosmetic types such as facial feminising surgery or implants, or more profound such as the euphemistically termed gender reassignment surgery.

They're not 'fake', they're just not women
This. You need to understand we're not being mean, we're not accusing people of being devious. We're just clearly saying if you've got a penis you're not female. What makes you think the opposite?

This sort of stigmatising lie, that most trans women are "fake" somehow as they don't want surgery is why people think poorly of the gender critical movement.

Some people, like yourself, think poorly of the GC people. Most people understand the importance and safeguards that are necessary for women and children. They know that fully intact males, no matter how they identify, presents a risk for women in spaces where they are vulnerable. This is the GC position. Most people recognise and understand this. Those who choose not to understand do so for nefarious reasons.

I'm a bit miffed that OP didn't want my jigsaw as an alternative rainy day activity. Got to be better for him than trawling for screen shots to show his friends. Each to their own though.

Has anyone seen the compilation on twitter of genitally intact transwomen filming themselves masturbating specifically in (and on) women's toilets? That seems relevant to a discussion about self id and single sex spaces. You've got to wonder if the judge in the recent case, or the EHRC, have seen something like that.

The videos are for sale on PornHub and OnlyFans of course.

Women are so bigoted and unkind to worry about "the nebulous 'danger' of transwomen" aren't they? After all, these people are virtually indistinguishable from us.

Yes I've seen that. Pretty unpleasant. Not really a thing that women do. There's only one sort of person that gets their cock out to wank off in the women's bathrooms, and they are most definitely the sort of people that are not wanted or in any way welcome. I've seen a few similar videos where they are trying on women's clothes in the women's changing room, jacking off whilst wearing them, and then putting them back on the hanger. Whilst sniggering about the unsuspecting women who will try it on next.

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

Let's put a stop to this lie now. TRANSSEXUALS have indeed used womens spaces and historically there was rarely an issue - there was once a mutual respect between women and transsexuals.
However we are now talking about transgender - a group made up of a huge variety of different identities
It is incorrect to say that such identities always used these spaces. These are the people that cooped transsexual rights for their own end.

Remember less than 2% of transgender are transsexual.

@BlueLipstickRocks

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

Let's put a stop to this lie now. TRANSSEXUALS have indeed used womens spaces and historically there was rarely an issue - there was once a mutual respect between women and transsexuals.
However we are now talking about transgender - a group made up of a huge variety of different identities
It is incorrect to say that such identities always used these spaces. These are the people that cooped transsexual rights for their own end.

Remember less than 2% of transgender are transsexual.

It was interesting that the judge kept referring to transsexuals. I wondered if that was relevant to anything. Has he not stood under the Stonewall trans umbrella?

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

So women can assert their boundaries to keep themselves safe, unless those boundaries upset someone else. And in those cases, they can shut up and put up with it. Have I got that right? Because if that's the case, there certainly is a problem. For those who want to push those boundaries.

Let's put a stop to this lie now. TRANSSEXUALS have indeed used womens spaces and historically there was rarely an issue - there was once a mutual respect between women and transsexuals.
However we are now talking about transgender - a group made up of a huge variety of different identities

AngryAttackKittens wrote (Thu 03-Jan-19)
"I'm going to point every "but the nice, harmless old school transsexuals whose movement has been unfairly appropriated by the nasty transgender people" person to this thread from now on.

All the same elements we're seeing now were there in that old BBC roundtable from the 70s with the 4 transwomen, the politician, and the doctor. None of this is new."

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3463920-Lets-go-back-to-2007

Women have reported going into the ladies changing room at their gym, only to find a naked, fully intact male there, sometimes more than one. I've seen many reports of this, from the UK & abroad. Often, the women say they won't use the showers/changing room/gym any more. Is this what you want to happen?

I can guarantee that any male prepared to display original equipment is no transsexual!

From, 'Let's go back' thread,

Pencilsinspace
(extract)
"The trans rights movement started with the Beaumont Society - a club for heterosexual cross-dressing men and their wives. TS could join too but they said no to drag queens because homophobia. Stephen Whittle was the first FTM to join Beaumont and was very active in the organisation.

The various demographics have been inseparable throughout PFC history. They championed the use of the word trans as it did not discriminate between TS and TV.

So it was never a case of the trans (as in TS) umbrella widening to include TVs and cross-dressers, rather it was the TV and cross-dressers umbrella widening to include TS.

PFC were consulted on changes to the Sex Discrimination Act in 1999. Women were not. Let that sink in. Women were not consulted on changes to the Sex Discrimination Act

PFC were talking about self-ID in 2000
Also in 2000 PFC were talking about an ultimate goal of just not recording sex

PFC were actively consulted (as in, invited to meetings in government departments and sent confidential drafts of reports for feedback) from the earliest stages of the work that resulted in the GRA.

It was PFC themselves who first spotted the potential problem with inheritance and primogeniture and actively suggested an exception. As far as I can tell this is the only exception they thought reasonable - but I'd have to dig out the original archived correspondence to verify that. It's all carefully preserved apparently because they're very proud of what they've done." (continues)