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?)

So... Are you saying not t has never happened?

Ann Sinnott Twitter comment,
"Many thanks for all good wishes! - far too many for me to reply to individually. Don't be downhearted.
Options being considered."
twitter.com/AnnMSinnott/status/1390568572632674304

Half of transwomen in prison are sex offenders.

[quote SelfPortraitWithEels]@ool0n Single documented example of someone who could produce eggs being able later to produce sperm, or vice versa?[/quote]
You realise that isn't the only way the "gametes" model of "sex" can be mutable? Plenty of trans women lose the ability to produce sperm, so if "produces sperm" is "sex", then that just changed. Full oophorectomy has the same effect in trans men. Then there are people born with no ability to produce sperm or eggs, who don't fit in your binary at all.

Why do you think that the women here should help you reframe your frustration, when you came here to vent it on us, op?

If you want to build bridges, build them. If they’re good for women, I’ll meet you halfway.

current thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4237456-Ann-Sinnott-of-Authentic-Equity-Alliance-vs-EHRC-Judicial-Review-of-incorrect-Equality-Act-guidance

Well you can try to explain what you'd plan to do with the female people who now have no spaces, resources or facilities because they can't use mixed sex ones.

If you're into inclusion, and equality, and intersectionality.

I respect you believe what you believe. Many female people don't share your beliefs and never will. We all have to exist together, and services and provisions have to work for everyone. Some tolerance and diversity of thinking is required.

But we are not talking about when a persons body is no longer able to produce sperm or eggs, we are talking about whether a person can switch from producing eggs to then producing sperm.

@spoonrider

The GRA was only ever a sop to the fact that same-sex equal marriage did not exist when the GRA was conceived. Beyond marriage rights it did not offer huge advantages to most trans people, which is why it has never been that much used. Especially so now that marriage law has changed.

Most trans people "self-ID" by changing their passports and driving licenses, which ARE used as identification, unlike a birth certificate which in the UK is pretty much only used for marriage. Even then it seems to be used inconsistently, with some folk reporting being asked for a BC, and others not.

For some of us a BC is needed because we don't reside in the UK and must have our home countries BC changed so that we can apply for citizenship in another country safely and legally.

To all those saying "well just repeal the GRA then" I'd have to ask, given that it doesn't present a danger to anyone (as shown in court) and that it does benefit some trans people.... why? Apart from spite?

A GR certificate is only to confirm someone is on the Gender Recognition Register, nothing more. It is the new birth certificate that gives legal recognition of BIRTH SEX.

Whatever you say, whatever you do, whatever you think your 'rights' are, I know that transwomen will use the space they want regardless of how women feel and our rights.

However you cannot change the fact that you will never have or be what I am - an adult human female. The world recognises me as such, they just know regardless of what I wear. I have something that you will never have, whatever you believe, whatever you say. I can chose not to use space you use and find alternatives, which I will. I can fight for the women who do not have as many resources and the freedoms I have, which I will. I can say that I don't have a gender and am GC, which I am and there's nothing you can do about that.

Normal people all over the world know that men are never going to be women. It's just a normal attitude. It's not some kind of "movement", it is just run of the mill, everyday people that know there are transsexuals and they are different to their birth sex but not actually the opposite sex. Just a normal point of view.

Oh dear. "Both these things don't work for the whole of a human lifetime. Because you can stop doing one you must be able to swap to the other."

Is there a pigeon emoticon?

You realise that isn't the only way the "gametes" model of "sex" can be mutable? Plenty of trans women lose the ability to produce sperm, so if "produces sperm" is "sex", then that just changed. Full oophorectomy has the same effect in trans men. Then there are people born with no ability to produce sperm or eggs, who don't fit in your binary at all.

Are you really suggesting that those of us who have needed oophectomies or are post menopausal are no longer female?

All women cease menstruating at menopause.

Right away the ability to produce eggs, and sperm, can and do change. Seems we have a different definition of "immutable". To me it's the dictionary defn of never changing through time. It seems to you it means something else entirely.

Are you trying to understand why we say it's not possible to change sex or have a disingenuous argument?

Yes, women are only fertile for part of their lives, roughly from 15 to 50 or so.

If they appear female at birth they will be investigated as to why if periods don't start as a teenager.

A boy cannot grow up to be a woman. Yes, they can get a document to say they are legally a woman, but no (sane) doctor is going to offer them birth control pills to avoid pregnancy, are they?

That is what we mean by sex being immutable.

OP this may assist with your lack of understanding of sex:

The Project Nettie statement: “Biological sex” is a scientific description of the reproductive anatomies that have evolved to fulfil the function of sexual reproduction. Biological sex exists independently of humans and society. In mammals, there are two types of gamete and two classes of reproductive anatomy. The male sex class produces many small motile gametes – sperm – for transfer. The female sex class produces few large immobile gametes – ova – and gestates/delivers live young. In any individual, reproductive anatomy is almost always unambiguously male or female and observed correctly at birth, regardless of ultimate sexual function or dysfunction. Male and female reproductive anatomies differ qualitatively, not quantitatively, and there are no intrinsically-ordered states between male and female reproductive anatomies. Biological sex does not meet the defining criteria for a spectrum. Although rare, some individuals have disorders of sex development (also referred to as intersex conditions). Most of these disorders are male or female specific and do not cause ambiguous biological sex. Some individuals have reproductive anatomies with both male and female features; here, biological sex classification is a complex process with input from medical professionals and parents. Not one of these individuals represents an additional sex class. Reproductive anatomies differentiate and mature under the control of genetic and hormonal signals, and measurements of these factors have strong predictive power, but do not define the sex of an individual. Biological sex is fundamentally defined by male and female reproductive anatomy. Attempts to recast biological sex as a social construct, which then becomes a matter of chosen individual identity, are wholly ideological, scientifically inaccurate and socially irresponsible."

The women being assaulted in prisons by male born sex offenders will tell you that's a problem.
The women losing Olympic places / sports awards/ medals / scholarships will tell you there's a problem.
The women being assaulted in mixed sex facilities will tell you there's a problem.
And countless others.

Women have been saying this for years and being bullied into silence. OP. rather than coming on here demanding women recant, why don't you start dealing with the evident problems and come and share it with women. Just so that we can see that you're posting in good faith rather than being goady?
Maybe start with all those sex offenders self identifying as women and demanding to be in women's prisons? What's your solution to this?

Oh, if you want stupid arguments it's perfectly possible to find situations where 2 add 2 doesn't equal 4, using vectors pointing in opposite directions, for example, but that doesn't really add to understanding. Or to demonstrate why most solid items are actually empty space. Doesn't stop you sitting on a chair.

What I am saying is, stop being disingenuous if you really want a useful discussion.

What a truly unpleasant thread, OP.

Just a few points -

You crow that transwomen have been using ladies toilets for years 'under the radar' as it were. You didn't. Women absolutely know. They were being polite.

Forensic archaeologists can tell whether skeletons from thousands of years ago were male or female. I have no idea why you mentioned cremation - that doesn't mean the evidence didn't exist, just that it was destroyed.

A pp mentioned the outcome of the Keira Bell case. Since your OP is basically telling women to give up the fight as the ruling yesterday means they have lost the fight, I assume trans activists will do the same re: puberty blockers etc?

Women are being raped in prisons by transwomen who are convicted sex offenders. Girls are not going to the toilet at School because of mixed sex toilets. Women have had to fight for the right to be treated with dignity after they have been raped.

We will not give up this fight - it is too important.

It's all changing and it can't be stopped now.
This genie won't go back in the box.
The law doesn't work for women.
So we'll change it.

Exactly. Like we have always changed laws that disadvantage women. It's simply a question of time.

Fortunately these sorts of threads serve as a very effective recruitment drive.

What with the 14 million unique users per month on this site, I imagine that Ray Bans are doing a roaring trade.

Exactly. Like we have always changed laws that disadvantage women. It's simply a question of time.

Fortunately these sorts of threads serve as a very effective recruitment drive.

Many of those new to the issues have found this thread useful:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3145470-Break-it-down-for-me