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?)

@R0wantrees

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)

Really interesting, thanks for that, will follow up

Sheila Jeffries describes transgenderism as part of the 'men's sexual rights movement' and describes (failed) attempts to push the boundaries of women's spaces back in the 1970s.

Speech is from the first 'We Need to talk' event which followed Maria Machlaclan being assaulted at Speakers Corner in 2017:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoaCr2qtC-w

Thanks so much for your patience in posting these links, @R0wantrees. So much to learn and so much respect for all the women fighting this for so many years.

@ool0n This is an utterly disingenuous figure

Thing is, there is a lot of disingenuous propagandising narrative being peddled by some dodgy actors; bollocks by people with bolleaux, if you will.

Yep, came down in the last shower and believe that a ideological driven survey of invested cohorts is indistinguishable from evidence based objective fact.

Same credible solid base as how men are indistinguishable from women.

I knew that I was right to trust my gut about this. It is the fight of my political life.

Notagain20

This is an utterly disingenuous figure, the largest survey of trans people showed the vast majority have surgery/take HRT or intend to.

Plenty say they intend to. Its meaningless.

Try walking out of Tesco without paying and see if "I was intending to pay sometime in the future" is deemed as being the same as actually paying.

Let's face it what really matters is whether or not someone chooses to keep original equipment and thats a massive majority.
In fact currently only 0.5% have genital reassignment surgery.

*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.*

Exactly right. Transsexuals were used to validate the organisation and legitimise their activities. Unfortunately and inevitable the sheer number of them allowed them to dictate trans rights and policies and people bought it.

The trans umbrella must be disbanded. Its just a meaningless excuse for mens rights that hijacks those it needs to along the way to legitimise itself.

You would be hard pushed to find any transsexual that supports the trans umbrella. I most certainly don't.

Very informative thread. As ever.

[quote R0wantrees]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/[/quote]
Wow, they have a page named /penis, that is something and not at all weird and creepy.

Those are the fake stats I was referring to thanks, now the largest ever survey of trans people, conducted in the US, showed only 12% of trans women in the US said they don't want labioplasty. And as I said that could be due to inability to afford it.

You would be hard pushed to find any transsexual that supports the trans umbrella. I most certainly don't.

There are plenty of people who identify as TS and support the trans umbrella not least some of those who formed Press For Change who have been so influential.

[quote Cailleach1]@ool0n This is an utterly disingenuous figure

Thing is, there is a lot of disingenuous propagandising narrative being peddled by some dodgy actors; bollocks by people with bolleaux, if you will.

Yep, came down in the last shower and believe that a ideological driven survey of invested cohorts is indistinguishable from evidence based objective fact.

Same credible solid base as how men are indistinguishable from women.[/quote]
"ideological driven survey", so in your conspiracy soaked world trans people just randomly lie about the healthcare they've received or intend to receive. I suppose as part of their plans for world domination?

I guess when you get to ignore all the data that conflicts with your worldview, you never have to worry about any challenge to your beliefs.

There are plenty of people who identify as TS and support the trans umbrella not least some of those who formed Press For Change who have been so influential.

Identify as TS and thats the problem. Plenty self id as transsexual but doesn't mean they are.

It wasn't TS that created the umbrella it was an entirely different agenda.

Oolon... are you a trans person yourself or an ally?

It is important I think to know the credentials of the person making such bold statements.

[quote R0wantrees]Sheila Jeffries describes transgenderism as part of the 'men's sexual rights movement' and describes (failed) attempts to push the boundaries of women's spaces back in the 1970s.

Speech is from the first 'We Need to talk' event which followed Maria Machlaclan being assaulted at Speakers Corner in 2017:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoaCr2qtC-w[/quote]
That would be this Shiela Jeffries...

"... those I agree with most are the radical right. Particularly the person I find that I agree with most, in here, and I’m not sure he will be pleased to find this, is Norman Tebbitt… Tebbitt also says that the savage mutilation of transgenderism, we would say if it was taking place in other cultures apart from the culture of Britain, was a harmful cultural practice, and how come we’re not recognising that in the British Isles."

Or maybe Janice Raymond who said back in the foundational gender crit work that (transgenderism) need to be morally mandated out of existence.

That sort of blatant hate for a minority is why many say the gender critical movement is one of hate.

I think there are a lot of predatory men who claim to be trans. There is no way to police this.

I believe that 51% of people who claim to be transwomen in prisons have histories of sexual assaults. Are they all “real” transwomen? I just don’t know anymore. Who decides?

I just don’t think they should be locked up with women.

@BlueLipstickRocks

Oolon... are you a trans person yourself or an ally?

It is important I think to know the credentials of the person making such bold statements.

What bold statements? Mostly I've stuck to citing the most reliable data in the face of obvious falsehoods about trans people. (I'm cishet)

That sort of blatant hate for a minority is why many say the gender critical movement is one of hate.

What hate?

The trans umbrella is a ridiculous monolith that needs pulled apart.

You seem to suggest that one must support the entire umbrella or else its hate.
I detest the trans umbrella and the nonsense it sends for. I think many of those who hide under it have questionable agendas.
Are you going to say I'm transphobic?

said they don't want labioplasty
We are not talking about what people say but what they do. And this is a British site. Also you still haven't answered my question.

What bold statements? Mostly I've stuck to citing the most reliable data in the face of obvious falsehoods about trans people. (I'm cishet)

You're talking utter nonsense I'm sad to say.

I am trans - Post Op transsexual with a GRC and honestly you're doing the complete opposite of what you think you are doing.
Please stop posting and start listening.

OP
Britain is not the US. Why do you keep harping on about the stats you say are accurate in the US ?

I just don’t think they should be locked up with women.

Genuine question... do you feel everyone under the trans label should be considered as a single entity and a blanket no or is there flexibility for those who have had genital reassignment surgery?

There has never been a single case of sexual assault in prison by a post op trans person. (I accept hormones aren't a sufficient differentiator)

@BlueLipstickRocks

What bold statements? Mostly I've stuck to citing the most reliable data in the face of obvious falsehoods about trans people. (I'm cishet)

You're talking utter nonsense I'm sad to say.

I am trans - Post Op transsexual with a GRC and honestly you're doing the complete opposite of what you think you are doing.
Please stop posting and start listening.

You are one person, I linked data from 28,000 trans people in the US. If you have a criticism of that then give it. Being trans doesn't mean you get to dismiss data from 10s of thousands of trans people without giving a good reason.